K-Mart Corp. Store No. 7441 v. Trotti
677 S.W.2d 632 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an intentional intrusion to be an actionable invasion of privacy, the plaintiff must prove the intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. An employee who uses their own lock on an employer-provided locker, with the employer's knowledge, has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that locker.
Facts:
- Billie Trotti was an employee at a K-Mart Corporation store.
- K-Mart provided employees with lockers but permitted them to use their own locks without requiring them to provide a duplicate key or combination.
- Trotti used a locker for her personal effects and secured it with her own combination lock, which K-Mart was aware of.
- On October 31, 1981, Trotti placed her purse in her locker and secured the lock.
- Later that day, the store manager and other administrative staff searched employee lockers, including Trotti's, because of a suspicion that a different, unidentified employee had stolen a watch.
- Trotti returned to her locker to find the lock hanging open and the contents of her purse in disarray, although nothing was missing.
- When Trotti confronted the manager, he initially denied searching the lockers.
- Approximately one month later, the manager admitted to searching the lockers and, at one point, her purse.
Procedural Posture:
- Billie Trotti sued K-Mart Corporation in a Texas trial court for invasion of privacy.
- The jury found in favor of Trotti.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict, awarding Trotti $8,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages.
- K-Mart Corporation, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), with Trotti as the appellee.
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 an intentional intrusion upon an employee's locker and personal effects constitute an actionable invasion of privacy if the jury is not required to find that the intrusion was 'highly offensive to a reasonable person'?
Opinions:
Majority - Bullock, Justice.
No, an intentional intrusion does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy unless it is found to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The trial court committed a reversible error by refusing to include the 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' standard in its definition of 'invasion of privacy' given to the jury. This standard is a fundamental element of the tort, and its omission improperly lowers the cause of action to a form of strict liability, potentially holding defendants liable for offending an unreasonably sensitive plaintiff. However, the court also held that by providing her own lock with K-Mart's knowledge, Trotti established a legitimate expectation of privacy in her locker. The evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding of an invasion of privacy had the jury been properly instructed. The court also found error in the trial court's jury instructions on damages, which failed to define 'mental anguish' and improperly allowed the jury to award damages for 'mere embarrassment' as a separate category.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in Texas by mandating the 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' standard as a required element for the jury to consider. It establishes an objective standard, preventing liability based on a plaintiff's subjective hypersensitivity. The decision is also significant for workplace privacy law, clarifying that employees can create a reasonable expectation of privacy in employer-owned property, like lockers, by taking measures such as using a personal lock with the employer's consent. This precedent shapes the analysis in future disputes over the legality of employer searches of employee's personal spaces at work.
