# Minnifield v. Ashcraft

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · December 10, 2004 · 903 So. 2d 818

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938924

## Case

- **Full name:** Wendy Minnifield v. Greg Ashcraft and Skin Worx, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 10, 2004
- **Citations:** 903 So. 2d 818; 2004 WL 2827940
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pittman
- **Judges:** Murdock, Pittman, Yates
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938924

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- characterizing invasion of privacy as intentional tort

## Opinion text

I concur in the result to reverse the trial court's judgment because I perceive a distinction between a defamation claim (which was what the defendants contended that Minnifield had pleaded) and an invasion-of-privacy claim (which is what Minnifield actually pleaded) and because the release signed by Minnifield appears to be ambiguous as to whether it applies to actions or omissions of the defendants occurring after *Page 828
Minnifield's tattoo had been affixed. Cf. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Goodin , 535 So.2d 98 , 101-02 (Ala. 1988). Consideration of the precise type of invasion-of-privacy claim Minnifield has pleaded and of the applicability of the release to intentional torts is, in my view, unnecessary.
CRAWLEY, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938924. Public record. Not legal advice.