Nader v. General Motors Corp.
25 NY 2d 560, 255 NE 2d 765 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion protects against the gathering of private information through unreasonably intrusive means, such as unauthorized electronic eavesdropping or overzealous surveillance, but does not extend to all offensive or harassing conduct.
Facts:
- Ralph Nader, an author and lecturer, was a prominent and severe critic of General Motors' products concerning their safety and design.
- In anticipation of the publication of Nader's book "Unsafe at any Speed," General Motors initiated a campaign to intimidate and silence him.
- General Motors hired agents to conduct interviews with Nader's acquaintances, asking them questions about his personal life, political views, and integrity, and casting aspersions on his character.
- Agents for General Motors kept Nader under surveillance in public places, including following him into a bank to observe the denomination of bills he was withdrawing.
- General Motors' agents engaged in unauthorized wiretapping of Nader's telephone and used electronic equipment to eavesdrop on his private conversations.
- Agents also arranged for women to accost Nader with illicit proposals in an attempt to entrap him.
- Nader received numerous threatening and harassing telephone calls at his home.
- General Motors conducted a continuous and harassing investigation into Nader's life.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Nader filed a complaint against General Motors Corporation in a New York state trial court.
- The complaint alleged four causes of action, including two for invasion of privacy.
- General Motors filed a motion to dismiss the two invasion of privacy causes of action for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court denied General Motors' motion to dismiss.
- General Motors, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order, finding the causes of action legally sufficient.
- The Appellate Division granted General Motors permission to appeal its decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, on a certified question.
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 a complaint that alleges unauthorized wiretapping and overzealous surveillance in public state a legally sufficient cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion under the law of the District of Columbia?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Fuld
Yes. A complaint states a valid cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion when it alleges conduct, such as unauthorized wiretapping and overzealous surveillance, designed to improperly gather private information. Under the law of the District of Columbia, the tort of intrusion protects an individual’s interest in preventing others from obtaining private information through unreasonably intrusive means. While some of the alleged acts, such as interviewing Nader's acquaintances and making harassing phone calls, do not qualify as intrusion because they do not involve gathering confidential information, the allegations of wiretapping and overzealous surveillance do. Wiretapping is a clear form of tortious intrusion. Similarly, while mere observation in a public place is not actionable, surveillance can become so 'overzealous' as to constitute an invasion of privacy; a person does not surrender all expectation of privacy simply by being in public. Since the complaint contains allegations sufficient to state a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be denied.
Concurring - Judge Breitel
Yes. While the first and second causes of action are legally sufficient, the court should not have analyzed the specific allegations to determine which ones are actionable under which tort theory at the pleading stage. The court's only role on a motion to dismiss is to determine if the causes of action, as pleaded, are sufficient, which they are. It is premature to decide that certain acts, like the attempted entrapment or systematic public surveillance, cannot constitute an invasion of privacy, as they may be part of a broader plan of intrusion. The law of privacy is still developing, and the court should avoid giving it an unduly restrictive scope before a trial record has been established. The court should simply affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss without giving an advisory opinion on the allocation of evidence among the different causes of action.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in defining the scope of the invasion of privacy tort, specifically 'intrusion upon seclusion.' The court's analysis distinguishes actionable intrusion from other offensive conduct, clarifying that the tort's purpose is to protect against improper information gathering, not to provide a remedy for general harassment. By recognizing that 'overzealous surveillance' in public could be actionable, the ruling established that a sphere of privacy exists even outside of one's home. This precedent set the stage for future cases involving surveillance, stalking, and electronic eavesdropping, influencing how courts balance the right to be let alone against the realities of life in public spaces.
