Bonome v. Kaysen
Massachusetts Superior Court
17 Mass. L. Rptr. 695 (2004)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Joseph Bonome (plaintiff) had an affair with and ultimately left his wife for author Susanna Kaysen (defendant). Bonome’s family, friends, and some of his business clients knew of his relationship with Kaysen. After Bonome and Kaysen broke up, Kaysen wrote an autobiography. The book referred to Bonome as Kaysen’s boyfriend, but it did not mention him by name. During their relationship, Kaysen had undiagnosed, severe vaginal pains. The book’s themes included the effect that the pains had on her relationship with her boyfriend. Accordingly, the book included graphic descriptions of the couple’s sex life, including the fact that the boyfriend would beg for sex, but that Kaysen often would deny the requests due to her vaginal pain. The book portrayed the boyfriend as insensitive to the pain. The book also contained one scene in which the boyfriend appeared to force himself on Kaysen sexually. This issue of whether and when undesired sexual advances turn into a nonconsensual physical relationship also became a theme of the book. Because Bonome’s family, friends, and clients knew of the parties’ relationship, they identified him as the boyfriend in the book. Bonome sued Kaysen for invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Muse, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
