 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worpenberg v. Kroger Co.3/8/2002
rd to show that anything that Kroger or its employees did or said intruded upon Worpenberg's private affairs, or that such an intrusion was offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. See Contadino v. Tilow (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 463, 589 N.E.2d 48. The essence of the claim was clearly, therefore, defamation.
C. Count IV
In the fourth count of Worpenberg's complaint, she alleged that Kroger and its employees "publicized, and/or allowed to be publicized, information about which led Kroger personnel and members of the public to believe that was involved in theft. Such conduct * * * would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and was highly offensive to [Worpenberg]. Further, said information was o no legitimate concern to said Kroger personnel."
Under the same analysis applied to Count III, it is clear that the gravamen of this claim was the allegation that Kroger had falsely accused Worpenberg of theft. Absent the allegation of falsity, there was no invasion of privacy, since merely telling employees non- confidential information about a former co-worker would not have been an intrusion into anyone's privacy. We hold, therefore, that the trial court correctly treated this claim as one sounding in defamation and therefore subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
Accordingly, Worpenberg's sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
PAINTER and SUNDERMANN, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|