| 词条 | Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc. |
| 释义 |
|name = Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc. |court = Alabama Supreme Court |image = Seal of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama.svg |imagesize = 150px |imagelink = http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Seal_of_the_Unified_Judicial_System_of_Alabama.svg |imagealt = |caption = |full name = Nealus E. Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc. et al. |date decided = |citations = 272 Ala. 174; 132 So. 2d 321; 1961 Ala. LEXIS 470 |transcripts = |judges = Stately; Livingston; Lawson; Merrill |number of judges = 4 |decision by = Stately |prior actions = |appealed from = |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = |italic title = }}Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 132 So. 2d 321 (Sup. Ct. Ala. 1961), is a decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, influential in the development of privacy law and state debt collection common law. [1][2] The CaseNealus Norris (plaintiff) sued Moskin Stores (defendant employer) and Morris Nathan (defendant employee) for invasion of privacy, intentional interference with marital relations, and slander (later stricken.) As part of their debt collection strategy, defendants had called plaintiff's wife and sister-in-law, pretending to be "Dorris" who had an affair with the plaintiff and was now pregnant. As a result, the plaintiff's wife separated temporarily and their marriage was strained until the truth came out. The defendants moved for a demurrer which was granted by the court and the lawsuit dismissed. Norris appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that where a jury could find a debt collector's conduct to be outrageous and humiliating to a person of ordinary sensibilities, there is a prima facie case for invasion of privacy. Since Norris raised a sufficient question of fact concerning the defendant's collection conduct to state a prima face claim for invasion of privacy, dismissal by the trial court was improper. The DecisionThe court reasoned that "mere efforts of a creditor... to collect a debt cannot without more be considered a wrongful and actionable intrusion", however, there is only a right to take "reasonable action" to collect a debt.[3] What constitutes "reasonable action" is a fact dependent inquiry. The court looked to three factors:
In short, there is a valid cause of action for invasion of privacy when creditors intrusive conduct is inherently unreasonable, or fails to bear a reasonable relation to the goal of collecting the debt owed. [4] NotesWhaley, Douglas (2009). Problems and Materials on Consumer Law (5th Ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. {{ISBN|978-0-7355-7711-4}} References1. ^http://privacy.uslegal.com/common-law-right-to-privacy/ 2. ^http://collections.uslegal.com/rights-duties-and-liabilities/agencys-liabilities-to-debtors-or-third-persons/ 3. ^Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 132 So. 2d 321, 323 (Sup. Ct. Ala. 1961) 4. ^http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/attorney/Convenience_Brief/Horne_v_Patton_case.pdf External links
5 : Alabama state case law|Debt collection|United States privacy case law|1961 in United States case law|1961 in Alabama |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。