Issue: What type of civil remedies are available for a violation of the right of privacy in New Jersey?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Right of privacy violation; Civil remedies|
|Cited Cases:||555 A.2d 663; 649 A.2d 853; 692 A.2d 61|
The common law of privacy is widely understood to comprise four distinct kinds of invasion of four different interests of a plaintiff, tied together by a common name, but otherwise having almost nothing in common. See Fijured v. Paralegal Technical Services. Inc., 555 A.2d 663, 665 (N.J. Super. 1989) (citation omitted); W. Prosser, Law of Torts 117 at && 804-12 (4th ed. 1971). New Jersey courts recognize all four types of invasion as set forth in the Second Restatement of Torts. See Rumbauskas v. Cantor, 649 A.2d 853, 856 (N.J. 1994); Fijured, 555 A.2d at 665-66. One of these common law actions is referred to by New Jersey courts as “the unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another.” See, e.g., Lingar v. Live-In Companions, Inc., 692 A.2d 61, 67 (N.J. Super. 1997); Fijured, 555 A.2d at 666.
New Jersey courts have relied on the Commentary to the Restatement in interpreting the elements of the seclusion type of privacy claim. Under the Restatement, a violation of privacy claim requires a showing that someone intentionally intruded, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, where the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. See Fijured, 555 A.2d at 666 (citations omitted). New Jersey courts, relying on the Commentary to the Restatement, have held that the intrusion must be into a private place or private seclusion. See id. (citations omitted). Moreover, […]