[Student’s Name Here]
Jurisdiction: Public disclosure of private facts under the state of Michigan
I. Alex Como has a legal basis for filing a case against Sarah Falinsky for invasion of privacy by Public Disclosure of Private Facts.
Como has a legal basis for filing a case against Falinksy for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts according to the privacy tort of public disclosure of private facts.
This memo will now discuss whether Como’s claim is strong enough to charge Falinsky for invasion of privacy given the provisions stated under the elements of private facts.
- The disclosure of information
Falinsky’s act of posting the incident that happened between Como and his girlfriend on the university’s host message board.
Falinsky’s act of posting Como’s private life in the university’s message board without his consent qualifies to public disclosure of private facts. Milford v. Gilb, 384 N.W.2d 786 (148 Mich.App. 778) will be utilized to establish the analogy of the public disclosure. Falinsky brought forward an issue that is private in nature.
Aside from the definition of a private fact, that being an information bearing private details about the individual, in this case a sexual act between consenting individuals, the following definitions shall also be included (major premises):
Definition of intrusion to what is held private by the person. Beaumont v. Brown, 237 N.W.2d 501, (65 Mich.App. 455).
- It is highly offensive to a reasonable person
Definition of the word of offensive is provided with the Restatement of Tort indicated under § 263D cmt. c. This provision provides that Como is not simply being too sensitive of the information that has been brought forward with Falinsky’s post at the university’s host message board.
Sufficient damages have been brought against Como after the information has been made public. This includes receiving unfavorable treatment from colleagues and co-workers. Tobin v. Michigan Civil Service Commission, 331 N.W.2d 184, December 23, 1982416 Mich. 661.
In addition, the public disclosure of the private affairs involving Como could also jeopardize his status at the university. The information was forwarded with malicious intent to damage the reputation of Como to the university that employs them and their co-workers.
- However, there is something about the information that could warrant a legitimate concern to the public.
Como’s sexual affair is nothing of public concern. However, being a teacher he has a moral and ethical obligation and responsibility. The issue can be quite disturbing given the nature of his job. Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Bd. of Educ., 565 N.W.2d 650, is cited as an example of while things are considered private affair, it is in aid of morality as a standard of every academic institution to protect. While the incident happens several years ago and it has not been brought to the proper authorities for action, concerns whether Como’s moral and psychological status is qualified to handle the nature of his profession.
The evaluation and analysis of the morality and Como’s probably accountability for an act that he participated in when he was 16 years old can best be defined and explained utilizing the case of US v. Anderson, 353 F.3d 49092 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-7396, 2003 Fed.App. 0455P. The said case can shed light whether Como should be held equally accountable for something he committed when he was still a minor.
Como needs to establish that while the act qualifies as a moral issue, it was done when he was a teen, and he deserves to be given the opportunity to put it behind him.
