Curry v. Whitaker
943 N.E.2d 354
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Currys and Andrew/Grace are adjacent neighbors in Edenwilde, Indianapolis; Grace is HOA president.
- Grace reported Jeffery for threatening emails and gun-ownership rumors in 2007, and for smoking-related nuisance in 2008.
- Andrew and Grace installed exterior surveillance cameras facing Currys’ front yard, driveway, and part of Currys’ garage in spring 2008.
- Video captured a person resembling Jeffery damaging a home security sign; authorities found probable cause, Jeffery was arrested and tried but acquitted.
- April 2, 2008 Currys filed suit against Andrew and Grace alleging invasion of privacy by intrusion, invasion of privacy by false light, and IIED; Andrew/Grace counterclaimed.
- March 2009 they moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment for Andrew/Grace in March 2010; Currys appeal the grant of summary judgment; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy by intrusion | Currys allege intrusions into private space via cameras and collusion with Croddy. | Cameras observed only exterior areas; no intrusion into private physical space. | Summary judgment affirmed; no intrusion into private space. |
| Invasion of privacy by false light | Andrew/Grace published false statements to public that harmed Currys’ reputation. | Publicity lacking; communications not to public at large; statements true or non-public. | Summary judgment affirmed; no true false-light publicity. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Conduct (surveillance, police reports, campaign) was outrageous and caused severe distress. | Conduct not extreme or outrageous enough to exceed decency. | Summary judgment affirmed; conduct not sufficiently outrageous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991) (intrusion requires physical invasion or equivalent intrusion into solitude)
- Creel v. I.C.E. & Assocs., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (invasion of privacy by intrusion limited to private spaces unless exceptional)
- Ledbetter v. Ross, 725 N.E.2d 120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (tort requires intrusion offensive to a reasonable person)
- Branham v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (false-light analysis under Restatement; publication not true may be required)
- Lindsey v. DeGroot, 898 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (IIED elements; rigorous standards; extreme conduct required)
- Branham v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (false-light—publication to public; requires falsity and publicity)