## Facts

- Meier & Frank Co., a Portland department store, operated an optical department managed by Kenneth C. Braymen.
- Legislation affecting the store’s ability to fit and sell eyeglasses was pending before the Oregon governor.
- Without George Hinish’s knowledge or consent, defendants signed Hinish’s name and address to a telegram to the governor urging a veto of the bill.
- Hinish alleged he was a classified federal civil-service employee restricted from political activity and that the telegram jeopardized his job status and retirement pension rights.
- Hinish alleged mental anguish and sought compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer; Hinish refused to amend; judgment was entered for defendants.

## Issues

1. Does Oregon recognize a common-law right of privacy enforceable through an action for damages?
2. If so, does unauthorized use of a person’s name to advance defendants’ political/economic position state a claim for invasion of privacy, including potential recovery for mental suffering?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer and remanded.
- The court held Oregon recognizes a legal right of privacy, the violation of which supports an action for damages.
- The complaint stated a cause of action because defendants had no right to appropriate Hinish’s name and personality, without consent, to influence a political controversy for defendants’ own purposes.
- The court held the alleged invasion supported at least nominal damages, and could support damages for mental suffering and punitive damages if proven.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon recognizes a common-law right of privacy, actionable in damages when wrongfully invaded.
- Appropriation of another’s name and personality, without consent, for the defendant’s purposes can constitute an invasion of privacy.
- Although mental anguish alone is generally not actionable, mental suffering is compensable when it is the direct, proximate, and natural result of an infringement of a legal right, including privacy.
- Uncertainty about the extent of injury or the proper amount of compensation does not bar recovery where a legal right has been violated; nominal damages are available for the invasion itself.

## Conclusion

The court recognized an actionable privacy right in Oregon and held that forging a person’s name to a political telegram to advance the sender’s interests alleges an invasion of privacy supporting nominal damages and potentially emotional-distress and punitive damages.


Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 482, 113 P.2d 438 (Or. 1941)