Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota
582 N.W.2d 231 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Minnesota common law recognizes a cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy, including the claims of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts, but does not recognize a cause of action for false light publicity.

Facts:

In March 1995, Elli Lake and Melissa Weber were on vacation in Mexico when a photograph was taken of them naked in a shower together.
After the vacation, Lake and Weber brought five rolls of film, including the one with the shower photograph, to a Wal-Mart store in Dilworth, Minnesota for developing.
When they retrieved their developed photos, a notice from Wal-Mart indicated that one or more photographs were not printed because of their 'nature'.
In July 1995, an acquaintance of Lake and Weber mentioned the photograph and questioned their sexual orientation.
In December 1995, another friend informed Lake and Weber that a Wal-Mart employee had shown her a copy of the photograph.
By February 1996, Lake was informed that one or more copies of the photograph were circulating in their community.

Procedural Posture:

Elli Lake and Melissa Weber filed a complaint against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing Minnesota did not recognize the tort of invasion of privacy.
The district court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss.
Lake and Weber, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.
Lake and Weber, as appellants, appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

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 Minnesota common law recognize the tort of invasion of privacy, encompassing the four distinct claims of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light publicity?

Opinions:

Majority - Blatz, C.J.

Yes, in part. The court recognizes the torts of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts, but no, it declines to recognize the tort of false light publicity. The court holds that it has the power to evolve the common law to meet the changing needs of society and that a right to privacy is integral to personal liberty. Joining the vast majority of jurisdictions, the court finds that the right to choose what aspects of one's life remain private is worthy of legal protection. However, the court refuses to recognize false light publicity because its claims substantially overlap with defamation, it lacks the procedural safeguards that limit defamation claims, and it poses an unacceptable risk of chilling free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Dissenting - Tomljanovich, J.

No. The court should not recognize a cause of action for invasion of privacy. The dissent argues that Minnesota has consistently declined to recognize this tort in the past, and there is no compelling constitutional basis for creating it judicially. Citing an increasingly litigious society, the dissent contends that the decision to create a new tort should be left to the legislature, not the courts.

Analysis:

This landmark decision brings Minnesota in line with the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions by judicially adopting three of the four invasion of privacy torts. It establishes new causes of action, providing legal remedies for individuals whose privacy is violated through intrusion, appropriation, or the publication of private facts. The court's refusal to recognize 'false light' publicity demonstrates a judicial effort to balance the protection of individual privacy against First Amendment free speech concerns, indicating that future privacy claims will be weighed against their potential to chill public discourse. This holding clarifies the landscape of tort law in Minnesota, creating new avenues for litigation while setting a distinct limit on their scope.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature