Case Brief: Elli LAKE, et al., pet., Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

CASE: Elli LAKE, et al., pet., Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., Respondents.   No. C7-97-263.

FACTS: The Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to recognize the four common law tort actions for invasion of privacy (claims of intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light).  Elli Lake and Melissa Weber vacationed in Mexico with Weber’s sister.  During the vacation, Weber’s sister took a photograph of Lake and Weber naked in the shower together.  After their vacation, Lake and Weber brought five rolls of film to Wal-Mart store and photo lab.  They received their developed photographs along with the negatives, and  a written notice stating that one or more of the photographs had not been printed because of their “nature.”  Acquaintance of Lake and Weber alluded to the photograph and questioned their sexual orientation.  In addition, another friend told Lake and Weber that a Wal-Mart employee had shown her a copy of the photograph.  Lake and Weber filed a complaint against Wal-Mart stores, Inc and one or more as-yet unidentified Wal-Mart employees.

ISSUE: Whether Minnesota should recognize the four invasions of privacy torts?

HOLDING: Yes except the claim of false light because it is too similar to defamation.

RULE: Following the majority of other states’ jurisdictions, Minnesota recognizes the right to privacy present in  common law which includes action in tort for intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts.

ANALYSIS:  (Blatz, J) The Court has the power to recognize and abolish common law doctrines.  This Court looked at other states as well as England to determine common law.  The Court indicated that the vast majority of jurisdictions recognize some form of the right of privacy.  The right of privacy is inherent in the English protections of individual property and contract rights and the “right to be let alone” is recognized as part of the common law across this country.  With this case, Minnesota joins the other states in recognizing the tort of invasion except false light because that claim is too similar to defamation.

(Tomljanovich, J) In the absence of a constitutional basis, the legislation should have the decision to create a new tort for invasion of privacy.  An action for an invitation of the right to privacy is not rooted in the Constitution.