Jim Dey: Betraying partner's trust can create expensive consequences
May 21—Trusting someone who is untrustworthy can extract a high price.
Just ask "Jane Doe." She's called that to ensure her anonymity because she trusted the wrong guy and ended up in court to seek a measure of justice.
The betrayal of that trust left her contemplating suicide, feeling personally humiliated, hopeless, mortified, panicked, angry, sad. You name it, she felt it.
Doe won a partial victory with a recent appellate court decision affirming a trial judge's order of a substantial monetary award from her antagonist, Andrew Fritch.
He took advantage of Doe in a high-tech way, and she responded under a 2020 Illinois law — the Civil Remedies for Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images Act.
The title identifies the sensitive issue — Doe and Fritch engaged briefly in an intimate sexual relationship.
On one occasion, he asked to record their activities. She agreed after he promised never to reveal it to anyone else.
Doe later found a more permanent and emotionally rewarding relationship, terminating her contact with Fritch.
He then put the video along with her identifying information on the internet, where everyone, including her family members, could see it. It was viewed "54,722 times" on one site where it was posted, according to legal documents.
It was not a close case in view of the facts. So Winnebago County Judge Lisa Fabiano granted summary judgment in Doe's favor and awarded damages — $4,300 in economic damages, $150,000 in emotional distress, $150,000 in punitive damages and another $12,485 to cover Doe's legal fees.
Under the law, Doe was entitled to damages if she could show that she did not consent to the dissemination, the image was "private" and "sexual," and that she was identifiable.
Fritch didn't have much to say when the case went to court. He asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent so he wouldn't be exposed to criminal charges.
But the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply broadly in civil cases because a defendant's liberty is not at issue.
In light of all the other evidence indicating Fritch put the video online, the trial judge drew an "adverse inference" against Fritch based on his assertion of his right to remain silent.
Held responsible for his conduct, Fritch sought to reduce the damages.
In reviewing the trial judge's findings, appellate Justice Thomas Harris, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said $150,000 for emotional distress was justified because of the negative impact on Doe's life.
"She did not believe the video would ever go away, and described (its dissemination) as 'the worst heartbreak of her life,'" Harris wrote.
As for the $150,000 in punitive damages, the appellate court said they were justified because Fritch's conduct was "wilful and wanton" and "particularly egregious" because Fritch posted Doe's personal and identifying information, and did so "in retaliation, with the intention to humiliate" her for having a new boyfriend.
The damages awarded Doe add up to nearly $320,000.
But collecting will most likely be a tough slog. In arguing against the size of the penalty he faces, Fritch raised the issue of his ability to pay.
His stance was rejected as irrelevant as a matter of law, even if it's not irrelevant in the real world.
The lawsuit identified Fritch as an employee of a discount-store chain, unlikely to collect sufficient compensation to pay such a large award.
As the old saying goes, one can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. As a new saying goes, once something is on the internet, it's difficult to make it go away.
