Subjective or Objective?

In regards to the Invasion of Privacy tort, is the "reasonable person" element subjective or objective?

Professor's Response:

The test is objective, but not in the sense that every “reasonable person” would be offended by the disclosure. Rather, consider the Young case from the reading materials: “No doubt an objective test obtains. A person may not be held liable for public disclosure of facts about another unless he should reasonably have foreseen that the person would be likely offended.” Thus, the test is not whether the plaintiff deemed it highly offensive; however, the fact that some person might not find disclosure of the information offensive does not mean there is no case, either. That is, the test is whether the disclosure of the information disclosed would be deemed “objectionable or highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.”

The Young court notes that information about “one’s sexual organs and reproductive system” is clearly a private matter. “It may be the fact that many women who have undergone a hysterectomy do not keep that fact secret, but this is not the test.” As long as a reasonable person woman would consider the fact a private matter, and it is foreseeable that a reasonable person would consider it a private matter, it is sufficient to satisfy the offensive or objectionable prong.

Thus, in our case file, the question was whether the release of a person’s age is “objectionable or highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.” Note that if age disclosure is not deemed highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, it does not mean there might not be some other claim, such as intentional or negligent inflection of emotional distress. However, such claims are beyond the scope of our course.