Hermanson V. Virginia Beach Summary

Summary of Facts
Herman informs Amador that Linda has not reported, to work that evening, the evening before or on several other evenings during the prior few weeks. As a result of this discussion, Amador learns that Linda was spending the evenings with her ex-boyfriend. Several days later, Amador commits suicide. Amador’s family sues the bank for invasion of privacy, alleging that Herman did not have the right to inform Amador that Linda had not reported for work
Issues
1. Does the plaintiff have the right to sue the bank for wrongful death or for the violation of the invasion of privacy. 2. Does the bank leave the liable on the Herman friend at the bank.
Applicable
In the case of Mayer v. Hampton, 127 N.H. 81 the court affirm both

Virginia Beach, 786 F. Supp. 1238 the court order, judgment, and will be granted with respect to Counts I through IV. Count V will be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff 's right to bring her state law claims in the Virginia courts. A final order will be entered in accordance with this Opinion after the Court is advised by plaintiff 's counsel how he wishes to proceed to protect the state claim. In the case of Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1983) and Jensen v. Conrad, 747 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 84 L. Ed. 2d 818 , 105 S. Ct. 1754 (1985), and on this Court 's decision in Swader v. Virginia, 743 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Va. 1990). The defendants argue in response that, under the analysis set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 , 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989), "a State 's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause." Id. at 197. In the case of In Swader v. Virginia, 743 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Va. 1990), this Court examined whether the special relationship analysis retained any viability after Deshaney. Swader concerned whether a prison employee, required by the State defendants to live on prison grounds, could state a cause of action under § 1983. Therefore, suit stemmed from the rape and murder of plaintiff 's daughter by a prisoner permitted, in violation of prison regulations, to work unsupervised in the non-fenced portion of prison property where plaintiff and her daughter resided. However in the case of Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 392 (4th Cir. 1990) wherein the state had no affirmative duty to protect children from injuries suffered at the hands of mother when State removed the child from father 's custody without hearing and placed custody with mother,and quoting DeShaney, 489