Hey David,
I have been very interested in this topic since you posted this. I am dedicating my Legal Research and Writing assignment to it. Just from a cursory glance at the relevant cases, the difference in the Kehoe case is that the Drivers Privacy Protection Act specifically allows for "liquidated damages". Under the more general Privacy Act of 1974, plaintiffs are allowed actual damages but not to be less than $1,000. In Doe v. Chao the Supreme Court held that in order to get the minimum damages of $1,000 the plaintiff had to prove some actual damages.
I believe that when it comes to an invasion of privacy, the court should treat the violation in the manner in which it treats trespass to land. Because a legal right is involved, the law recognizes that actual harm occurs in every trespass. In an English case from 1814, Merest v. Harvey, the court said "In a case where a man disregards every principal which actuates the conduct of gentlemen, what is to restrain him except large damages?" The point is that even in a case where little harm is done, the violation of a right is worth protecting with a large damage award. Today, even nominal damages are sufficient to warrant punitive damages in a trespass to land case.
I think most people would agree that having their social security number published on the Internet is an invasion of their privacy, but does the law agree? That is what I will be researching for my assignment. I will share with you what I find out and I'm sure if nothing else, I will learn a great deal about the issue.
Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE
to post a reply:
login - or -
register