Howard v. Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc.
2017 WY 152, 406 P.3d 1271 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wyoming recognizes the common law tort of invasion of privacy, specifically intrusion upon seclusion, as defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. An individual is subject to liability for this tort if they intentionally intrude upon the solitude or private affairs of another in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- Gretchen Howard, Audrey Kinion, and Steve Winn each leased a computer from Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc. under lease-purchase agreements.
- Aspen Way operated a rent-to-own franchise called Aaron’s Sales and Leasing.
- Without the knowledge of Howard, Kinion, or Winn, Aspen Way allegedly installed software on the leased computers.
- This software enabled Aspen Way to track the computers' locations, remotely activate the webcams, capture screen shots, and log keystrokes.
Procedural Posture:
- Gretchen Howard, Audrey Kinion, and Steve Winn each filed separate complaints against Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc. in the Natrona County circuit court.
- Aspen Way moved for summary judgment, arguing Wyoming does not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Aspen Way on the privacy claims, agreeing that such claims were not recognized in Wyoming.
- The Plaintiffs (now Appellants) appealed the circuit court's order to the district court.
- The district court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding there was not enough judicial context to declare that Wyoming recognizes the tort.
- The Plaintiffs (now Petitioners) filed petitions for a writ of review with the Wyoming Supreme Court, which granted the petitions and consolidated the cases.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wyoming common law recognize a cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy, specifically intrusion upon seclusion, as defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, Justice.
Yes, Wyoming common law recognizes a cause of action for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court's role is not to create a new tort, but to determine if the tort exists as part of Wyoming's common law, which was adopted by statute. Since the legislature has not repealed common law privacy torts, the court must decide if the tort is consistent with Wyoming's laws and societal conditions. The court found that Wyoming has a well-established policy favoring individual privacy interests, as evidenced by numerous legislative enactments and prior judicial statements. Therefore, recognizing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is consistent with Wyoming law and well-adapted to its society. The court adopted the formulation from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B because it represents the majority rule, provides an established body of precedent, and is consistent with the court's practice of relying on the Restatement to develop common law.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes a new cause of action in Wyoming, aligning the state with the vast majority of jurisdictions that recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. By doing so, the Wyoming Supreme Court provided a civil remedy for individuals whose privacy is intentionally and offensively invaded by private actors, a particularly relevant protection in the digital age. The ruling confirms the judiciary's authority to evolve the common law to address modern societal needs and technological advancements without waiting for legislative action. This precedent will govern future cases involving claims of secret surveillance, data collection, and other forms of privacy invasion by non-governmental entities.
