Baltimore Personal Injury Lawyer - Maryland

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

Out of State Automobile Accidents-What law Applies?

Steve Silverman — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:24:49 GMT

I recently represented a Maryland resident who was driving in Delaware when his car was hit head-on by by another Marylander who was driving in the opposite direction. My client suffered substantial injuries requiring multiple surgeries. Because the victim and the defendant were residents of Maryland, I was able to bring suit in Maryland even though the accident happened in Delaware.

The more important question was whether the Maryland Court would apply Delaware or Maryland negligence law. This was a critical issue for the victim because the Delaware law of comparative negligence is much more “plaintiff friendly” than Maryland’s doctrine of contributory negligence (see my previous blog on a discussion of contributory negligence v. comparative negligence” )

When deciding whether Maryland or Delaware law applies to this case, the Maryland Judge will follow the doctrine of lex loci delicti, which states that the law of the jurisdiction where the accident took place controls. Many states, including Delaware, take the position of the Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 145, which sets out the “most significant relationship test” and lays down six factors in § 6 to determine which law should apply when an accident occurs in one state between residents of a different state. In White v. King, the Maryland Court of Appeals clearly stated that Maryland law recognizes the doctrine of lex loci delicti. 223 A.2d 763 (1966).

This holding was reaffirmed in Hauch v. Connor, where the Court of Appeals reiterated that “[t]he rule of lex loci delicti is well-established in Maryland (although in Hauch itself, the Court applied Maryland law to an accident in Delaware based on public policy reasons because the Worker’s Compensation action could not have existed under Delaware law at all). When its rationale has been put into question, ‘this Court has consistently followed the rule.’” 295 Md. 188 at 124 (1983).

Thus, Maryland follows the rule of lex loci delicti. Even though both parties are residents of Maryland, the accident occurred in Delaware so Delaware law applies to this case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman

Contributory Negligence in Maryland for Maryland Personal Injury Cases

Steve Silverman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:48:21 GMT

The Doctrine of Contributory Negligence adversely affects many personal injury plaintiffs in the State of Maryland. Basically, if a victim is found to share in the responsibility for an accident, the victim is completely bared from recovery. This doctrine, only found in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. frustrates many deserving injury victims and their lawyers.

In most states, recovery or compensation is based upon the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. Comparative negligence, a much fairer standard, comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to act in a reasonable standard of care. For example, suppose one person was driving too fast and hit a car that that failed to stop completely at a stop sign. In this situation-where each party has some degree of negligence in causing an accident-the responsibility to the other person(s) is reduced by the others' degree of negligence.

For example, suppose a jury decides that the driver going too fast was 10% responsible for the accident, while the driver who blew through the stop sign was 90% responsible. If the driver who was driving too fast is awarded $10,000, his recovery would be reduced to $1,000 because of his 10% contributory negligence.

If this accident case were decided in a contributary negligence jurisdiction such as Maryland, the driver who was found to have contributed to the accident by 10% would be 100% barred from any recovery. This can be unfortunate in situations where a plaintiff is severely injured or paralyzed, and can not make any recovery.

Most people do not think about this concept very often until it affects them personally. So if you are driving in Maryland, have an accident-watch out! The opposing insurance company may try to tag you with 1% of the blame to prevent compensating you a nickel. Immediately get yourself an experienced Maryland personal injury lawyer to protect you. Otherwise you may be left with mounting medical bills, ruined credit, and no where to turn.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Silverman