77 A.3d 1214
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Tenants and visitors (including minors) sued building owner/manager and installers after concealed video cameras were found inside smoke detectors in four public bathrooms (two male, two female) in an office building.
- Defendants installed the surveillance in 2003 to deter alleged vandalism (e.g., stuffing paper towels in toilets); cameras allegedly lay dormant until 2007 when they were connected to a DVR and monitor for ~3 days.
- An employee accidentally discovered the monitor in a maintenance closet; police and the county prosecutor investigated and seized equipment; no criminal charges resulted.
- Plaintiffs alleged invasion of privacy (common-law intrusion on seclusion and statutory invasion under N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1), plus intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in sink/common areas; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Appellate Division reversed as to the privacy claims (remanding for trial), but affirmed dismissal of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on common‑law intrusion on seclusion | Covert cameras (inside smoke detectors) arguably viewed stalls and common areas; a jury could find the intrusion "highly offensive" and that plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy | Cameras only monitored sink/common areas (not stalls); no invasion of private areas as a matter of law | Reversed: factual disputes (scope/placement, clandestine nature) preclude summary judgment; privacy claim goes to jury |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1 (statutory invasion) | A reasonable jury could find images captured intimate parts or private grooming in circumstances where a person would not expect to be observed | Statute inapplicable because cameras only covered non‑intimate, sink areas | Reversed: statute claim not suitable for summary judgment given disputed facts about camera coverage |
| Whether plaintiffs may recover punitive damages under the Punitive Damages Act | Plaintiffs preserved punitive damages if compensatory damages awarded, arguing defendants acted with actual malice or reckless disregard | Defendants argued conduct lacked the requisite culpability or was reasonable response to vandalism | Remanded: record could support punitive damages claim if jury finds compensatory liability and requisite mental state |
| Whether intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims survive summary judgment | Plaintiffs claimed severe psychological harm caused by discovery of covert surveillance | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to meet the high legal standard for outrageous conduct and severe emotional harm | Affirmed dismissal: record insufficient to meet standards for either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76 (2013) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- John Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (recognizing privacy interests grounded in Fourteenth Amendment and New Jersey Constitution)
- Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., 129 N.J. 81 (1992) (adopting intrusion on seclusion tort under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B)
- Villanova v. Innovative Investigations, 420 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 2011) (GPS tracking case discussing limits of intrusion tort where no expectation of privacy in public movements)
- Rumbauskas v. Cantor, 138 N.J. 173 (1994) (privacy torts are a complex of distinct invasions; discussion of appropriate damages and limitations)
- Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993) (discussing personal hardships and compensatory remedies under employment discrimination law, cited for analogy on personal harms recoverable)