# Minnifield v. Ashcraft

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938925

## 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 Murdock
- **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/9938925

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- characterizing invasion of privacy as intentional tort

## Opinion text

I concur in the result. I agree with the main opinion that the appropriation invasion-of-privacy tort in Alabama would appear to protect both commercial and psychological interests. I cannot agree, however, with the analysis of the main opinion with respect to the release agreement signed by Minnifield.
Specifically, I cannot agree that the release agreement executed by Minnifield is ambiguous as it relates to Minnifield's claim alleging invasion of privacy. I fail to find any provision in that agreement that reasonably can be construed as releasing Ashcraft and Skin Worx for damage resulting from the publication of photographs of Minnifield after her tattoo work was completed, rather than for the tattoo work itself. However, I cannot base my decision in this case on that proposition, because Minnifield does not argue it to this court on appeal. See McLemore v. Fleming , 604 So.2d 353 (Ala. 1992).
Nonetheless, I concur in the result reached in that portion of the main opinion reversing the trial court's summary judgment insofar as it was based on the release agreement signed by Minnifield. I do so on the separate ground that that release agreement is not effective to release Ashcraft and Skin Worx from their intentional tortious conduct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938925. Public record. Not legal advice.