Kinsey v. MacUr
107 Cal.App.3d 265, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1964, 165 Cal. Rptr. 608 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intentional disclosure of private, embarrassing facts to a substantial number of people, even if not to the public at large, can satisfy the 'publicity' element of the tort of invasion of privacy. An individual involuntarily thrust into the public eye does not permanently become a 'public figure' and retains a right to privacy regarding past events after a lapse of time.
Facts:
- In 1966, Bill Kinsey was charged with the murder of his wife in Tanzania and was acquitted after spending six months in jail; the case attracted some media attention.
- In December 1971, Kinsey began a short-term sexual relationship with Mary Macur.
- On April 5, 1972, Kinsey ended the relationship, telling Macur that another woman was coming from England to live with him.
- After the breakup, Macur began a campaign of sending numerous letters to Kinsey, his new partner Sally Allen (whom he later married), and their acquaintances.
- The letters were sent to a diverse group of recipients including the Kinseys' former spouses, parents, neighbors, members of Bill Kinsey’s dissertation committee, other faculty, and the president of Stanford University.
- The letters contained false accusations that Kinsey had murdered his first wife and was a rapist, and also disclosed embarrassing private information about the Kinseys.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill and Sally Kinsey filed a complaint in a California trial court against Mary Macur for a permanent injunction and general damages for invasion of privacy.
- The parties stipulated to a preliminary injunction.
- Macur filed a cross-complaint against Kinsey for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment.
- Following a nonjury trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Bill Kinsey for $5,000 and denied Macur's cross-complaint.
- Mary Macur (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 sending letters containing private and false information to a diverse group of approximately twenty people, who are unconnected to each other but are all acquaintances of the plaintiff, satisfy the 'publicity' element required for an invasion of privacy claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, J.
Yes, sending letters to a diverse group of approximately twenty people connected to the plaintiff satisfies the 'publicity' element for an invasion of privacy claim. The court reasoned that 'publicity' does not require communication to the general public, but rather 'mass exposure' to a group of people. Disseminating private information to a diverse group of the plaintiff's personal and professional acquaintances, who have nothing in common besides their connection to the plaintiff, violates the individual's right to define their 'circle of intimacy.' The court also rejected Macur's defense that Kinsey was a public figure, holding that he was an involuntary public figure due to his murder trial years earlier. Citing Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., the court affirmed that individuals, particularly those acquitted of crimes, have a right to 'melt into the shadows of obscurity' and regain their privacy over time.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the 'publicity' element for the tort of invasion of privacy does not require dissemination to the mass media or the general public. Instead, a targeted campaign of disclosure to a substantial but limited number of a person's social and professional contacts can be legally sufficient. This decision broadens the protection of privacy against private individuals, not just media organizations. It also reinforces the principle that being an involuntary public figure is not a permanent status, and the right to privacy can be reclaimed after a sufficient passage of time, especially where rehabilitation or the right to be 'let alone' is at stake.
Unlock the full brief for Kinsey v. MacUr