Nude Photos Placed on My Car

[codger]

My question involves defamation in the state of: California

Yesterday morning, I went out to get in my car and found a manila envelope on the windshield with my first name printed on it.

Inside were photos of my wife in a compromising position with another man.

Apparently, my wife has been having an affair and decided to end it, and her "boyfriend" was angered by this and decided to get back at her by letting me in on their secret by showing me the pictorial proof.

Obviously, I am in some turmoil.

My question is, can I sue this person for intentionally causing emotional distress by putting those photos where I would see them? His face does not appear in the photos, only the wife's.

Thanks.

[cbg]

No.

Do you really want to advertise this to all and sundry? Court records are public, you know.

[Mr. Knowitall]

It's very difficult to prove and win a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Also, as cbg suggests, the litigation can bring a lot more attention to conduct of this nature than the actual offending conduct.

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is “‘“‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.’”’” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001 [25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550, 863 P.2d 795]; see Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 79, 820 P.2d 181].) A defendant's conduct is “outrageous” when it is so “‘“extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”’” (Potter, at p. 1001.) And the defendant's conduct must be “‘“intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.”’” (Ibid.)

* * *

With respect to the requirement that a plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. “Severe emotional distress means ‘“emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.”’” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1004.)

[codger]

It's very difficult to prove and win a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Also, as cbg suggests, the litigation can bring a lot more attention to conduct of this nature than the actual offending conduct.

I wouldn't recommend it. I would put the time and money you would use on the case towards marriage counseling with your wife.

Sounds like good advice. Yes, I do believe I have other priorities right now.
Thanks.

[THEAMAZINGCHAN]

did she know he was taking photos of her? is that legal?

[codger]

did she know he was taking photos of her? is that legal?

Yes, she consented to the camera play, she admits that.
Whether they are posted or published anywhere, that we don't know. Probably not. It was a revenge thing, but I don't think it went beyond making sure I saw them. Who knows though. Hard to tell.

[jk]

maybe the guy just felt he was letting you know what your wife had been up to and providing unquestionable proof.

[codger]

maybe the guy just felt he was letting you know what your wife had been up to and providing unquestionable proof.

Could be. Lord only knows how badly she treated him. I have no interest in pursuing it any further in a legal sense. The guy probably did me a favor. This had apparently been going on for some time, and I'm glad I know about it now.