Quick Summary
Aaron and Christine Boring (plaintiffs) sued Google Inc. (defendant) after Google captured and published images of their home without permission. The dispute centered on whether these actions constituted invasion of privacy and trespass.
The Third Circuit held that while Google’s actions did not meet Pennsylvania’s standard for invasion of privacy, they did constitute trespass. The case was remanded to allow the trespass claim to proceed.
Facts of the Case
Aaron and Christine Boring (plaintiffs) lived on a property along a private road with clear ‘No Trespassing’ signage. Despite this, Google, Inc. (defendant), through its Street View program, captured images of the Borings’ home, including their swimming pool, without their consent.
The Borings discovered that these images, taken from their driveway, were available to the public online. Prior to this event, similar images of their property were accessible via the county assessor’s website.
The Borings filed a lawsuit against Google for invasion of privacy and trespass among other claims, seeking over $25,000 in damages for each claim. They argued that Google had infringed upon their privacy by entering their private property without permission and by making the images publicly available on the internet.
Procedural Posture and History
- The Borings sued Google in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
- Google removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The District Court dismissed the Borings’ complaint for failing to state a legally cognizable claim.
- The Borings appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether Google’s act of taking and publishing photographs of the Borings’ property constituted invasion of privacy, trespass, and other legal claims warranting compensation.
Rule of Law
To establish an invasion of privacy claim in Pennsylvania, one must show conduct that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Trespass requires an unprivileged intentional intrusion onto another’s land. Unjust enrichment requires a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff that would be inequitable for the defendant to retain without payment.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed whether Google’s conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and found that merely entering an ungated driveway and photographing from there would not. The Court also noted that the Borings did not allege they were viewed inside their home, which would have been more intrusive.
For the trespass claim, the Court recognized that trespass is a strict liability tort in Pennsylvania and does not require damages to be pled. However, the Court did not find grounds for claims of unjust enrichment or punitive damages as there was no benefit conferred or outrageous conduct by Google.
The Court also concluded that since the photographs had been removed from Street View, there was no basis for injunctive relief. In summary, while Google’s act was deemed not highly offensive for privacy claims, it did constitute a trespass, for which nominal damages could be sought.
Conclusion
The Court affirmed the dismissal of invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, and punitive damages claims but reversed the dismissal of the trespass claim, allowing it to proceed.
Key Takeaways
- Entering a driveway and photographing a home does not necessarily constitute an invasion of privacy if it is not highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Trespass does not require proof of damages in Pennsylvania; therefore, claims can proceed on the basis of unprivileged entry alone.
- Unjust enrichment claims require a conferred benefit which was not present in this case, thus not supporting such a claim against Google.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a legally recognized invasion of privacy?
An invasion of privacy is recognized when an individual’s personal life is intruded upon in a manner that would be deemed highly offensive to the average person and there is no legitimate public interest justifying the intrusion.
- For example: A neighbor secretly installing cameras pointing at another’s bedroom window would likely be seen as an invasion of privacy.
Under what conditions can a person be liable for trespass?
Trespass liability occurs when a person intentionally enters or causes an object to enter someone else’s property without permission or legal right, regardless of whether harm was done.
- For example: Someone cutting through a backyard without consent, even if they do not damage any property, commits trespass.
What are the essential elements required to establish a claim of unjust enrichment?
To establish unjust enrichment, the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant received a benefit at the claimant’s expense under circumstances that make it inequitable for the defendant to retain that benefit without providing compensation.
- For example: If someone mistakenly improves another person’s property thinking it was their own, the property owner may be unjustly enriched if they don’t compensate for the value-added.
References
Was this case brief helpful?