Pearson v. Dodd

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1969 · Torts

TortsInvasion of PrivacyConversionintrusioninvasion of privacypublic interest defenseconversiontrespass to chattels

Facts

Former employees of Senator Dodd, sometimes aided by current staff members, entered his office without authority, removed numerous documents from his files, copied them, returned the originals, and gave the copies to Jack Anderson. Anderson knew the copies had been obtained without authorization, and Pearson and Anderson later published newspaper columns based on information from the documents. The undisputed facts before the court established only knowing receipt of the copied documents, not active participation by Pearson or Anderson in the removal. The published columns concerned Dodd's relations with lobbyists for foreign interests and his public career as a United States Senator.

Issue

Whether columnists who knowingly received and used copies of documents that others had improperly taken from a senator's files were liable for invasion of privacy by intrusion or for conversion. The case also presented whether the publication itself constituted invasion of privacy when the published material concerned matters of public interest.

Rule

Publication is not actionable as invasion of privacy when the matter published is of general public interest. Intrusion is a form of invasion of privacy consisting of an improper physical or nonphysical intrusion into a sphere from which an ordinary person in the plaintiff's position could reasonably expect the defendant to be excluded, and the tort is complete upon obtaining the information by improper means; however, mere knowing receipt of information from an intruder does not itself establish liability for intrusion. Conversion requires such serious interference with another's right to control a chattel that the defendant may justly be required to pay its full value; where originals are returned undamaged and the copied information is not property of a type protected by conversion, there is no conversion.

🔒

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 Seattle, Nora Kim installs a tiny microphone inside her neighbor Eli Moreno's home office after borrowing a spare key under false pretenses. She records several conversations but never shares them with anyone.

If Eli sues Nora for invasion of privacy on an intrusion theory, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority recognized intrusion as a privacy tort covering improper physical or nonphysical intrusion into a sphere from which a person could reasonably expect the defendant to be excluded. It also stated that publication is not an essential element; the tort is complete when information is obtained by improperly intrusive means.