A Massachusetts man who sued his ex-girlfriend over her sharing an unflattering nude picture of him and accessing his private on-line accounts with out permission has had his $10,280 court docket award upheld.
In December 2023, a Bristol County trial decide entered the award in Andrew Thibaudeau’s favor after discovering that he was the sufferer of intentional infliction of emotional misery by the ex-girlfriend, Denise Reis, who appealed that ruling.
A Massachusetts Appeals Courtroom three-justice panel this week affirmed the trial court docket award.
Nonetheless, the appeals court docket denied Thibaudeau’s cross-appeal wherein he requested the court docket to reinstate extra claims of negligence and defamation/libel in opposition to Reis that had been dismissed by the trial decide.
Thibaudeau’s legal professional, Tim Frawley, of MGC Legislation in Windfall, informed Insurance coverage Journal that his consumer is pleased with the choice from a damages standpoint however is contemplating additional enchantment over the dismissed claims.
What Occurred
At trial, Reis testified that she took the nude {photograph} of Thibaudeau on her mobile phone when she and he had been dwelling collectively as a pair. She claimed that they each laughed on the picture as a result of it was unflattering. Reis additional acknowledged that she solely confirmed the {photograph} to a buddy after she and Thibaudeau had damaged up. She additionally stated she despatched her buddy an digital copy of the picture on a number of events and set the nude picture because the Thibaudeau contact image on her mobile phone after which shared the contact profile together with her buddy. Moreover, Reis readily admitted that she accessed Thibaudeau’s e mail, Fb, and Google accounts with out his permission. In so doing, she learn his emails and personal messages and deleted a few of his images.
Opposite to Reis’s testimony, her buddy testified that Reis first confirmed her the picture at her house after which confirmed the picture once more to herself and a bunch of 4 or 5 mutual pals after they had been at a neighborhood bar. The buddy additionally testified that the picture was shared with a number of individuals throughout social gatherings and that “all people knew about it,” referring to her mutual buddy group with Thibaudeau.
A buddy of Thibaudeau’s testified that he discovered in regards to the picture from his girlfriend, who’s in the identical social circle as Reis, and instantly notified Thibaudeau. This buddy acknowledged that after studying in regards to the picture, Thibaudeau started to socialize much less incessantly.
Thibaudeau testified that as a result of picture being shared and Reis’s interference together with his on-line accounts, he tended to “keep away as a lot as potential” from native social gatherings and has skilled appreciable psychological anguish and issue sleeping.
Thibaudeau additionally expressed concern about Reis’s actions affecting his employment as a result of risk that she would possibly nonetheless possess and share his private info or different images. Thibaudeau additional acknowledged that he has no recollection of the picture being taken and didn’t give Reis permission to take the picture.
Intentional Infliction
The appeals court docket famous that to prevail on a declare for intentional infliction of emotional misery, a plaintiff should present that the defendant meant to trigger, or ought to have recognized that their conduct would trigger, emotional misery; that the defendant’s conduct was excessive and outrageous; that the defendant’s conduct induced the plaintiff’s misery; and that the plaintiff suffered extreme misery.
To be thought-about excessive and outrageous, the conduct should be “past all bounds of decency” and “totally insupportable in a civilized group.” Legal responsibility can’t be based upon mere insults, threats, or annoyances.
On enchantment, Reis argued that Thibaudeau had not glad the necessities for a declare of intentional infliction of emotional misery.
The appeals court docket discovered that the trial decide didn’t err and will moderately conclude from the proof that Reis ought to have a minimum of recognized that her choice to share an unflattering nude {photograph} with a number of individuals of their small group and to entry Thibaudeau ‘s on-line accounts and private images with out his permission would trigger him emotional misery.
Moreover, the appeals court docket continued, sharing an specific {photograph} of one other particular person with out their consent is the kind of conduct that has been acknowledged as “excessive and outrageous.” Lastly, given the uncontroverted testimony relating to Thibaudeau’s psychological anguish main him to keep away from socializing in his hometown, the decide’s dedication that Reis’s conduct induced hum extreme emotional misery was affordable and supported by the document.
Extra Claims
The trial decide had dismissed Thibaudeau’s negligence primarily based claims on the bottom that in Massachusetts there isn’t a legally cognizable responsibility between the events in a courting relationship. Nonetheless, Thibaudeau maintained that at trial it was decided that all the conduct alleged within the criticism occurred after the termination of the connection between the 2.
The trial decide additionally dismissed Thibaudeau’s declare of defamation/libel as a result of the intimate picture didn’t comprise info figuring out Thibaudeau because the particular person depicted within the {photograph}. However Thibaudeau on enchantment argued that this was disproved at trial by Reis’s personal testimony that there was figuring out info.
Nonetheless, the appeals court docket additionally discovered no error by the trial decide within the dismissal of the extra counts. Relating to the negligence claims, the appeals court docket stated that Thibaudeau did not argue {that a} responsibility of care existed between himself and the defendant ample to maintain his negligence claims, and that Thibaudeau cites no case legislation supporting this proposition. As for the defamation/libel depend, the appeals court docket stated Thibaudeau did not argue why the picture was defamatory or libelous or cite any case legislation to that impact.
Frawley, Thibaudeau’s legal professional, informed Insurance coverage Journal that he believes there are grounds to enchantment the negligence primarily based claims and the defamation declare as a result of it was “clearly established” at trial that there was no courting relationship and there was proof of disclosure of his consumer’s id.
Matters
Massachusetts
Crucial insurance coverage information,in your inbox each enterprise day.
Get the insurance coverage business’s trusted e-newsletter