Nader v. General Motors Corp.

Brief Fact Summary.

General Motors learned that Nader was planning to publish a book that was highly critical of one of its cars, so it initiated a vicious harassment campaign against Nader.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

To sustain a cause of action for invasion of privacy, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was truly intrusive and that it was designed to elicit information which would not be available through normal inquiry or observation.

Facts.

Nader is an author on consumer safety who was highly critical of General Motors. When General Motors learned that Nader was planning to publish a book that was highly critical of one of their cars, General Motors initiated a series of efforts to intimidate and threaten Nader into not publishing the book. Notable examples of this harassment include keeping Nader under surveillance in public places, having girls accost him to entrap Nader into illicit relationships, making threatening phone calls, and wiretapping his private phone conversations.

Issue.

Would the D.C. Court of Appeals uphold an individual’s right to be protected against any interference whatsoever with his personal seclusion and solitude, or would the D.C. Court of Appeals instead merely protect an individual from intrusion into “something secret” (snooping and prying into one’s private affairs)?

Held.

Would the D.C. Court of Appeals uphold an individual’s right to be protected against any interference whatsoever with his personal seclusion and solitude, or would the D.C. Court of Appeals instead merely protect an individual from intrusion into “something secret” (snooping and prying into one’s private affairs)?

Concurrence.

Justice Breitel

At least two of the causes of action were sufficient in alleging an invasion of privacy claim. The other claims that were insufficient should be dismissed, and that’s that.

It is improper for this Court to be analyzing each of the particular allegations in the pleadings to determine whether the evidence offered in support of the allegations is relevant to one or more cause of action.

The real issue at hand is whether a private person is entitled to be free of certain grave intrusions unsupported by palpable social or economic excuse or justification. But privacy law is still rapidly developing, so we should take to mind the examples that this particular case gives as we continue to evaluate how best to protect the privacy interests of individuals.

Discussion.

D.C. recognizes a common-law action for invasion of privacy and has extended that tort to instances of intrusion, whether by physical trespass or not, where a reasonable person in a plaintiff’s position could expect that the particular defendant should be excluded. At common law, the tort of invasion of privacy is aimed to protect individuals from having their private affairs known to others, and not the right to be left alone. Thus, the tort is generally applied as a remedy for instances of intrusive conduct that involved the gathering of private facts or information through improper means.

While the law does not provide remedy for every annoying thing in life, the law will step in to protect against certain types of intrusive conduct. Here, some parts of General Motors’ investigation into Nader were impermissible as relates to a claim for invasion of privacy, while others were permissible.

For example, General Motors’ interviews of persons who knew Nader were permissible because information about Nader already known to others cannot be regarded as private to Nader. If Nader was upset about the phrasing of the questions, then his proper suit would be for defamation and not invasion of privacy. Likewise, sending girls to accost Nader with illicit proposals and repeatedly making threatening calls to Nader at all hours, while offensive and disturbing, did not involve intrusion for the purpose of gathering information of a private and confidential nature. The mental pain and anguish suffered due to General Motors’ deliberate and malicious harassment campaign would be better addressed by the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which has different elements to prove.

A better claim for intrusion of privacy would be the constant surveillance under which General Motors put Nader. However, most of the surveillance that occurred was in the public, and mere observation of the plaintiff in a public place does not amount to an invasion of privacy generally. There are certain circumstances however where surveillance may be so overzealous as to render it actionable.

Nader’s best claim for invasion of privacy is that General Motors illegally wiretapped his home because they received confidential information into Nader’s life from such efforts.