Boyles v. Kerr

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana · 1991 · Torts

TortsPrivacyNegligenceMental Anguishinvasion of privacynegligent invasion of privacymental anguishnegligent infliction of emotional distress

Facts

After dating Kerr, Boyles arranged to use a friend's house for sexual intercourse with her, while his friends secretly set up a hidden video camera focused on the bed. The sexual encounter was videotaped without Kerr's knowledge, and Boyles later obtained the tape and showed it on three occasions to a total of ten people. Kerr testified that gossip about the tape spread on college campuses and among friends at other schools, and that she suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, nightmares, shaking, dizziness, stomach problems, and difficulty with work and exams. The jury found Boyles and the others negligent and grossly negligent, apportioned fault, and awarded mental anguish and exemplary damages.

Issue

Whether Texas law recognizes recovery where a defendant's negligent conduct invades another's privacy or negligently inflicts mental anguish, and whether Boyles owed Kerr a duty and there was sufficient evidence and verdict support for the judgment. Also at issue was whether omitted findings necessary to an invasion-of-privacy theory could be supplied under Rule 279.

Rule

A defendant may be liable when a recognized privacy interest is invaded negligently as well as intentionally, and emotional distress may be recovered when a wrongful act foreseeably causes direct mental anguish. Duty exists when a person of ordinary common sense would recognize that failure to exercise reasonable care under known circumstances would place another in danger, with risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the conduct and the burden of guarding against injury. For invasion of privacy by public disclosure, the plaintiff must show publicity concerning private life, that the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, and that the matter was not of legitimate public concern; omitted elements may be deemed found under Rule 279 if some necessary issues were submitted and answered, the omission was unobjected to, and the evidence supports the finding.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Austin, Noah Mercer invited Lena Ortiz to his apartment for a private counseling conversation about her recent miscarriage. Without telling her, Noah activated a speaker system that transmitted the conversation into the next room, where several acquaintances could hear it. When Lena later learned what happened, she developed nightmares, shaking, and severe difficulty concentrating at work.

If Lena sues Noah in Texas for negligence based on invasion of privacy and direct mental anguish, which is the strongest argument that Noah owed her a duty?

Explanation. The majority held that duty may arise from knowledge of the danger and exists when a person of ordinary common sense would recognize that failure to exercise reasonable care under known circumstances would place another in danger. It also emphasized that foreseeable direct emotional injury can support liability where a recognized privacy interest is invaded. Intent to injure and a special relationship are not required. (Derived from Boyles v. Kerr (n.d.).)