Doe v. Lamb
Citations
- 235 Conn. App. 295
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, victims of criminal computer hacking by the defendant L, appealed from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of L's parent, the defendant J. The plaintiffs claimed that the court improperly granted summary judgment because J had voluntarily assumed a duty of care to them to monitor and supervise L's Internet usage at J's home or, in the alternative, J owed a general duty of care arising from her affirmative conduct, and J failed to prevent L, an adult, from hacking into the plaintiffs' social media accounts to obtain and post on the Internet photographs of them in the nude. Held: The trial court properly rendered summary judgment for J on the plaintiffs' claims sounding in negligence, in which they alleged that J had voluntarily assumed a duty of care to them, as this court could not conclude that a reasonable person in J's position could foresee that the mere act of providing a computer or Internet service to an adult child would result in the kind of harm the plaintiffs alleged, and, although J had made gratuitous, unsolicited email statements to the police representing what she had done and was intending to do to prevent future hacking attempts by L, there was no genuine issue of material fact that J did not learn that L had stolen the plaintiffs' photographs and posted them online until after that conduct had ceased. Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim, public policy considerations, under the circumstances at issue, did not compel the conclusion that J's actions gave rise to a duty of care to the plaintiffs, as the parties' normal expectations weighed against establishing such a duty, any benefit that might accrue from recognizing a public policy of encouraging parents to monitor their adult children's Internet use could not be counterbalanced by the practical difficulties inherent in taking on such a task, the recognition of such a legal duty would increase litigation, and the decisions of courts in other jurisdict
Judges: Elgo; Clark; Westbrook
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court· 2002-05-13· cited 386×
- Gazo v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-30· cited 339×
- Clay Elec. Co-Op., Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Florida· 2003-12-18· cited 200×
- Jaworski v. KiernanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-06-17· cited 140×
- United States v. MillerFifth Circuit· 2011-12-13· cited 131×
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-25· cited 122×
- Craig v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-02-04· cited 98×
- Patentas v. United StatesThird Circuit· 1982-08-24· cited 96×
- Thompson v. BohlkenSupreme Court of Iowa· 1981-11-25· cited 93×
- Fraser v. United StatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-04-16· cited 88×
- Tryon v. Town of North BranfordConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-07-11· cited 81×
- Kaminski v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-07-31· cited 78×
- Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-04-22· cited 67×
- Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone v. Connecticut Siting CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-03-18· cited 61×
- LePage v. HorneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-12-03· cited 60×
- Gomes v. Commercial Union InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-11-20· cited 50×
- Murdock v. CroughwellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-04-27· cited 42×
- Ryan Transportation, Inc. v. M & G AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-11-04· cited 39×
- Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-24· cited 35×
- Smith v. FreundCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2011-02-02· cited 27×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.