Based on the scenario, the branches of invasion of privacy that exist are intrusion upon personal solitude, public disclosure of private facts, and appropriation.
Studd Lee may bring a lawsuit against Sheeza Clodd for intrusion upon personal solitude considering how Sheeza Clodd’s recording satisfies all the elements for this tort. By recording Studd Lee’s conversation with his doctor, Sheeza Clodd invaded Studd Lee’s physical solitude or seclusion, causing him mental anguish; this condition supports one of the legal elements required for this invasion of privacy branch. Moreover, the recording took place during a medical checkup in his personal physician’s office, a place where things are supposed to be kept private; thus, Studd Lee must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy where the intrusion takes place. Supporting the third legal element of intrusion is the fact that the act is objectionable to a reasonable person; in this case, recording a conversation between a patient and his physician is an objectionable act regardless of who the victim of the intrusion is.
Alternatively, Studd Lee
…show more content…
As the first element that must be fulfilled to make the appropriation a valid case, the use of Studd Lee’s name, image, or likeness is evident in the advocacy group’s new campaign. In the meantime, the second element for this case is the use for commercial purpose; this aspect is quite unclear on its role in supporting the appropriation case because the advocacy group is not a commercial business, but the fact that it benefits from more donation may provide a sound reasoning that a commercialization of Studd Lee’s personality does happen. Lastly, the third element for this case is the lack of the plaintiff’s consent, and this can be proved easily by the fact that Studd Lee has never agreed to be a part of the