潘金莲传媒映画

A Massachusetts man who sued his ex-girlfriend over her sharing an unflattering nude photo of him and accessing his personal online accounts without permission has had his $10,280 court award upheld.

In December 2023, a Bristol County trial judge entered the award in Andrew Thibaudeau’s favor after finding that he was the victim of intentional infliction of emotional distress by the ex-girlfriend, Denise Reis, who appealed that ruling.

A Massachusetts Appeals Court three-justice panel this week affirmed the trial court award.

However, the appeals court denied Thibaudeau’s cross-appeal in which he asked the court to reinstate additional claims of negligence and defamation/libel against Reis that were dismissed by the trial judge.

Thibaudeau’s attorney, Tim Frawley, of MGC Law in Providence, told 潘金莲传媒映画 Journal that his client is happy with the decision from a damages standpoint but is considering further appeal over the dismissed claims.

What Happened

At trial, Reis testified that she took the nude photograph of Thibaudeau on her cell phone when she and he were living together as a couple. She claimed that they both laughed at the photo because it was unflattering. Reis further stated that she only showed the photograph to a friend after she and Thibaudeau had broken up. She also said she sent her friend an electronic copy of the photo on multiple occasions and set the nude photo as the Thibaudeau contact picture on her cell phone and then shared the contact profile with her friend. Furthermore, Reis readily admitted that she accessed Thibaudeau’s email, Facebook, and Google accounts without his permission. In so doing, she read his emails and private messages and deleted some of his photos.

Contrary to Reis’s testimony, her friend testified that Reis first showed her the photo at her home and then showed the photo again to herself and a group of four or five mutual friends when they were at a local bar. The friend also testified that the photo was shared with multiple people during social gatherings and that “everybody knew about it,” referring to her mutual friend group with Thibaudeau.

A friend of Thibaudeau’s testified that he learned about the photo from his girlfriend, who is in the same social circle as Reis, and immediately notified Thibaudeau. This friend stated that after learning about the photo, Thibaudeau began to socialize less frequently.

Thibaudeau testified that due to the photo being shared and Reis’s interference with his online accounts, he tended to “stay away as much as possible” from local social gatherings and has experienced considerable mental anguish and difficulty sleeping.

Thibaudeau also expressed concern about Reis’s actions affecting his employment due to the possibility that she might still possess and share his personal information or other photos. Thibaudeau further stated that he has no recollection of the photo being taken and did not give Reis permission to take the photo.

Intentional Infliction

The appeals court noted that to prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intended to cause, or should have known that their conduct would cause, emotional distress; that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s distress; and that the plaintiff suffered severe distress.

To be considered extreme and outrageous, the conduct must be “beyond all bounds of decency” and “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Liability cannot be founded upon mere insults, threats, or annoyances.

On appeal, Reis argued that Thibaudeau had not satisfied the requirements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The appeals court found that the trial judge did not err and could reasonably conclude from the evidence that Reis should have at least known that her decision to share an unflattering nude photograph with multiple people in their small community and to access Thibaudeau ‘s online accounts and personal photos without his permission would cause him emotional distress.

Additionally, the appeals court continued, sharing an explicit photograph of another person without their consent is the type of conduct that has been recognized as “extreme and outrageous.” Finally, given the uncontroverted testimony regarding Thibaudeau’s mental anguish leading him to avoid socializing in his hometown, the judge’s determination that Reis’s conduct caused hum severe emotional distress was reasonable and supported by the record.

Additional Claims

The trial judge had dismissed Thibaudeau’s negligence based claims on the ground that in Massachusetts there is no legally cognizable duty between the parties in a dating relationship. However, Thibaudeau maintained that at trial it was determined that all of the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred after the termination of the relationship between the two.

The trial judge also dismissed Thibaudeau’s claim of defamation/libel because the intimate image did not contain information identifying Thibaudeau as the person depicted in the photograph. But Thibaudeau on appeal argued that this was disproved at trial by Reis’s own testimony that there was identifying information.

However, the appeals court also found no error by the trial judge in the dismissal of the additional counts. Regarding the negligence claims, the appeals court said that Thibaudeau failed to argue that a duty of care existed between himself and the defendant sufficient to sustain his negligence claims, and that Thibaudeau cites no case law supporting this proposition. As for the defamation/libel count, the appeals court said Thibaudeau failed to argue why the photo was defamatory or libelous or cite any case law to that effect.

Frawley, Thibaudeau’s attorney, told 潘金莲传媒映画 Journal that he believes there are grounds to appeal the negligence based claims and the defamation claim because it was “clearly established” at trial that there was no dating relationship and there was evidence of disclosure of his client’s identity.

Topics Massachusetts