This court must give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and assume the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. Since the appeal is from the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, the facts are derived from the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed in part and reversed in part. Under the circumstances here, a jury should determine whether the alleged conduct was outrageous. As discussed in the nonpublished portion, the trial court should have overruled the demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Rather, once posted on, this article was available to anyone with Internet access. The facts contained in the article were not private. Appellants further argue that the person who submitted the article to the newspaper did so with the intent of punishing appellants and thus they have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.Īs discussed in the published portion of this opinion, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend to appellants' invasion of privacy cause of action. Appellants note that the republication included the author's last name whereas the posting did not. The trial court concluded not and sustained the demurrer to appellants' complaint without leave to amend.Īppellants contend the republication constituted a public disclosure of private facts that were not of legitimate public concern and thus was an invasion of privacy. The issue presented by this appeal is whether an author who posts an article on can state a cause of action for invasion of privacy and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress against a person who submits that article to a newspaper for republication. Their invasion of privacy claim is primarily based on their relationship to Cynthia and the community reaction to Cynthia's opinions, not on respondents' conduct directed toward them. The Coalinga Record did not identify David, Maria and Araceli when it published the Ode. ) Thus, even if Cynthia did have an invasion of privacy claim, David, Maria and Araceli would not have standing. It cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |