Baltimore Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Civil Invasion of Privacy-A Tort Under Maryland Law

Steve Silverman — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:41:43 GMT

Whether it involve a landlord with a peephole, unauthorized movies or pictures, or compromising pictures posted on the Internet, the tort of invasion of privacy is the best means to recover in civil court in the state of Maryland.

The tort of invasion of privacy offers potential plaintiffs hope of recovering damages for mental suffering, shame or humiliation for the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, publicizing one's private activities with which the general public has no legitimate concern, or wrongful intrusion into one's private affairs.

If defendant is found liable for intrusion, and no defense or privilege is asserted, the plaintiff may be able to recover damages or obtain other relief. Unlike the tort of defamation, in which damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the harm to his or her reputation, in an invasion of privacy suit, it is the harm to the plaintiff's dignity that is evaluated. Thus, to bring a successful invasion of privacy suit, it is not necessary that a defamatory remark be ''published,'' that is, made known to a person other than the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is the only one that is required to be aware of the intrusion, although the court must later also be convinced that he or she suffered mental distress.
A variety of remedies are available to an intrusion victim: general damages, special damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

General damages are of the type that generally flow from the intrusion-invasion of privacy tort, i.e., those that the law itself implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of and that are the immediate, direct and proximate result of the tort. General damages accrue as a necessary result of the injury, or they are the damages that did in fact result from the wrong, directly and proximately.

For instance, in Dietemann v. Time, Inc., the plaintiff was awarded $ 1000 in general damages for injury to the plaintiff's ''feelings and peace of mind'' after he had been deceived by reporters, who later wrote a critical article about him in ''Life'' magazine. In a New Hampshire action, a former wife, sought damages for the mental anguish, shock, anger, and sense of violation and deception she experienced when she discovered that her former husband had invaded her privacy by recording telephone conversations without her knowledge or permission. The former husband had recorded conversations between his former wife and the couple's daughter and the couple themselves. The recordings were in violation of New Hampshire's wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. The wife gave personal testimony of mental distress that was sufficient to present the issue of damages to the jury. The plaintiff's mental anguish affected her work, appetite, ability to sleep and emotional stability. The plaintiff's mother corroborated her daughter's testimony, stating that her daughter's sleep and eating patterns were disrupted for an extended period of time as a result of the emotional distress she experienced when she discovered the illegal recordings. The court felt that even though damages in invasion of privacy actions are necessarily subjective in nature, they are recoverable without demonstrating actual physical injury and without establishing causation by expert testimony.

Special damages are those ''which are the actual, but not the necessary, result of the injury complained of, and which in fact follow it as a natural and proximate consequence in the particular case, that is, by reason of special circumstances or conditions.'' Special damages are required to be specially pleaded and proved.

Compensatory damages are ''such as will compensate the injured party for the injury sustained and nothing more; such as will simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong or injury. [They are] [d]amages awarded to a person as compensation, indemnity or restitution for harm sustained by him.'' Compensatory damages consist of both general and special damages. An example of compensatory damages being awarded to an intrusion victim can be found in Birnbaum v. United States. The plaintiffs' letters to and from the Soviet Union were opened and copied by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The district court awarded compensatory damages of $ 1000 to each plaintiff individually and ordered the government to send letters of apology to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the compensatory damages were affirmed, but the part of the judgment requiring that the letters of apology be sent was reversed.

Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded to a plaintiff, over and above compensatory damages, when the wrong done to him or her is aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud or wanton and wicked conduct on the defendant's part. Punitive damages are intended to soothe the plaintiff's mental anguish, shame, and/or degradation. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant, and, as such, are sometimes referred to as ''vindictive'' damages.

For example, in Nader v. General Motors Corp., Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, was awarded $ 2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $ 7,000,000 in punitive damages in an invasion of privacy action against the car manufacturer. The action stemmed from G.M.'s surveillance and harassment of Nader when G.M. learned that Nader had written ''Unsafe At Any Speed,'' a book extremely critical of the car industry.

In Black v. United States, the government was held liable for $ 903,232 in damages arising out of approximately ten weeks of electronic surveillance of the plaintiff by F.B.I. agents. Damages were awarded for injuries, including loss of name, reputation, friends and business associates, in addition to mental pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, as well as for loss of employment.

In other invasion of privacy cases, injunctive relief may be granted. An injunction is an equitable remedy, requiring the person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing.

In summary, an intrusion-invasion of privacy victim has a number of remedies at his or her disposal to compensate for past damage or injury, to punish the wrongdoer, or to enjoin the wrongdoer from future intrusion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Junk Faxes-Plaintiff's Lawyers Are Recovering Millions

Steve Silverman — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:11:12 GMT

We all get them. Those annoying travel offers or mortgage refinance offers that tie up your fax machine at work, or wake you up in the middle of the night at home. They are illegal and a violation of the federal law. Several lawyers are fighting back, and some have recovered millions of dollars for their clients. Once the lawyer educates the judge on the law, getting the judgment is easy. The hard part is collecting. Often these illegal "fax blaters" are fly-by-night operations that are hard to track down. We have been successful in the past in both getting the judgment and recovery.

The "Junk Fax" suit is filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §201, et seq. (hereinafter, “the Act”). When the U.S. Congress passed the Act in 1991, it found widespread outrage among Americans over the proliferation of sales and advertising via telephone calls and facsimile transmissions. At that time, over 30,000 businesses were actively telemarketing goods and services to business and residential customers, and there had been a steady increase in the number of complaints to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, leading to the conclusion that these unsolicited communications constituted a nuisance and an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and interfered with interstate commerce.

The proliferation of so-called “junk faxes” has continued despite the Act. Since 1991 a body of case law has evolved, interpreting the Act in the face of a variety of creative defenses. The courts have now confirmed the existence of a private cause of action, exclusive state court jurisdiction, the absence of any need for state enabling legislation, the constitutionality of the Act under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the validity of the statutory damages established by the Act, and the availability of class actions to enforce the Act.

Over the past several years, a large industry has arisen based on the practice of fax broadcasting. The legitimate segment of this industry involves the broadcast transmission of faxes to those on membership lists, customer lists, and other compilations of persons who have given their prior express consent to the fax transmissions or are in business relationships with the sender. However, another segment of the industry is based on the broadcast transmission of fax advertisements to recipients who have not given their prior express consent and are not in any business relationships with the sender.

Due in large part to increasingly powerful software, computers, and facsimile transmission equipment, and the gathering and dissemination of lists of fax numbers via the Internet, the ability to send thousands of fax advertisements in a relatively short period of time has become attainable by an increasing number of advertising entrepreneurs. A single compact disc can hold the fax numbers of thousands of potential recipients. Current computer software enables anyone with a personal computer and a modem to send identical documents to hundreds or thousands of recipients. A search on the Internet using the search words “fax broadcast” turns up hundreds of sites offering the lists, software, services and techniques involved in fax broadcasting.

The Act entitles a person or entity to bring an action in state court to recover the greater of their actual monetary loss or $500 per violation. If the violation was willful or knowing, the court, in its discretion, may increase the award up to $1,500 per violation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Wegmans Food Market Recalls Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls

Jenny Albano — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:16:24 GMT

Wegmans Food Market Inc., in conjunction with the FDA, is recalling Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls because they may actually contain potato rolls ,which has a milk allergen that is not listed on the label. The recall includes 18 oz. wheat rolls with a best by date of October 10. The bread was produced on October 1 and would have been sold in stores on October 2 and October 3 in Wegmans Food Stores.

No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall of this product is of concern only to those individuals who have allergies to milk. Consumption may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk.

This product is only sold at Wegmans Food Markets in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Maryland Girls Falls From Amusement Park Ride

Jenny Albano — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:02:48 GMT

A young girl fell from a ride called the Octopus at the Six Flags America amusement park on Friday, August 3. The Octopus is described by the park as a "mild thrill ride" that takes riders up and down and spins in circles.

Some witnesses say the girl, who's name and age have not been released, fell 25 feet from the amusement park ride. When the paramedics arrived the child was conscious. She suffered possible head, hip, and leg injuries and was flown to a local hospital.

The cause of the fall is under investigation. A spokesperson for the Six Flags America amusement park did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Property Owners' Liability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Crocs Can Be Dangerous

Jenny Albano — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:36:59 GMT

Crocs, the popular bright rubber clogs that come in an array of colors and shape to you feet, can be dangerous.

There have been reports that children wearing the popular shoes have had their feet sucked into the sides of escalators. Some stores and malls have even put up signs warning people that if they are wearing Crocs they should be careful. The manufacturers of Crocs have designed a new tag to include escalator safety tips.

Recently, many hospitals have decided to ban Crocs from being worn by staff. The shoes, which are marketed to nurses, can be dangerous for hospital personnel because sharp objects like needles or scalpels can fall into the holes that are located on the top of the shoe.

Some hospitals are just banning the Crocs that have the holes in the top; Crocs or shoes like them that have solid tops are allowed.

These shoes are worn by many children, adults, and hospital personnel, and they should be aware of the hazards that come along with wearing them.

For more information on this subject, pease refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

E. Coli Infection Linked To Spinach Sickens Maryland Boy

Steve Silverman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:31:11 GMT

Health authorities have identified a 5-year-old Harford County, Maryland boy-whose mother fed him spinach-as one of Maryland's three confirmed infections by the deadly E. coli bacteria. According to the Baltimore Sun one of the Maryland cases has been fatal. Although health authorities have not officially linked the recent Maryland cases to the nationwide outbreak, there are significant similarities to the nationwide epidemic.

Nationwide, the Center for Disease Control has identified 175 cases of spinach-related infection with E. coli in 25 states. After a nationwide alert on September 14, grocers pulled potentially tainted bagged spinach from produce shelves, and consumers were warned to discard any bagged spinach they had purchased.

In Toledo, Ohio-five family members have sued a spinach producing company investigators are examining as being linked to the tainted greens. The spinach-sickened consumers are seeking at least $1000,000.00 in federal court for their respective ailments.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Disclaimer

Staff Writer — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:28:45 GMT

The information found on this website should not be construed as legal advice and is not a substitute for professional legal consultation. You should not base your legal decisions solely on the information found in this site and you are encouraged to seek the counsel of an attorney regarding your specific questions or situation.

The information found herein may represent the opinions or commentary of the site editor(s) and is for informational or education purposes only. You agree by using this site that no attorney/client relationship has been formed between you and the attorneys, editors, owners, or participants in this site unless and until a written agreement has been signed between you and your attorney.

We cannot guarantee that you will receive a response to any inquiry you submit through this site. If you believe you have a legal claim, please be aware that there are deadlines and statutes of limitation which must be met or you may lose your opportunity to pursue your claim. Time is of the essence and we urge you to act. If you do not find help through this site, seek immediate assistance elsewhere.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer