Technosis Inducement - A New Cause of Action?
I am sure that anyone who is reading this knows at least one person who is constantly using some sort of devise used to 'stay connected'. They walk down the street chatting on their cell phone, pause to read and respond to email on their blackberry, check news/stocks/sports on their cell phone, and then jump on their laptops - and this is all before they have even arrived at work or school. This condition is commonly known as 'technosis' or 'technophilia', and it's basically an obsession with 'staying connected'.
For the average person, in fact for every person, no one absolutely needs this kind of connectivity. It's one thing when a CEO is in the process of negotiating a very large deal, or a lawyer is in the middle of a big, highly publicized trial - at these times it probably does pay to stay connected on a constant basis. However, it really does take a certain type of narcissism to actually believe that your day-to-day affairs are so high priority that any semblance of a private life needs to be sacrificed entirely.
This condition did not occur over night. Rather, as new types of wireless devices hit the market, large companies have been encouraging their personnel to stay connected on a constant basis. Recent studies that have been cited in last Monday's edition of Investors Business Daily show that there are almost no executives out there who are not constantly connected. More importantly, this type of connectivity can easily impact one's personal life, and adversely effect one's family life and psychological condition (personally, I can't stand it when my wife is glued to her Blackberry during our few moments of the day that we spend together).
Since it could be argued that this condition could be attributed to the actions and policies of employers, could 'technosis inducement' one day surface as a new cause of action? I think that it's a long shot, but who knows these days? I can imagine a creative tort lawyer arguing that an employer's conduct constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress, or maybe even intentional infliction of emotional distress if the actions are particularly egregious. I suppose we will have to see...
For the average person, in fact for every person, no one absolutely needs this kind of connectivity. It's one thing when a CEO is in the process of negotiating a very large deal, or a lawyer is in the middle of a big, highly publicized trial - at these times it probably does pay to stay connected on a constant basis. However, it really does take a certain type of narcissism to actually believe that your day-to-day affairs are so high priority that any semblance of a private life needs to be sacrificed entirely.
This condition did not occur over night. Rather, as new types of wireless devices hit the market, large companies have been encouraging their personnel to stay connected on a constant basis. Recent studies that have been cited in last Monday's edition of Investors Business Daily show that there are almost no executives out there who are not constantly connected. More importantly, this type of connectivity can easily impact one's personal life, and adversely effect one's family life and psychological condition (personally, I can't stand it when my wife is glued to her Blackberry during our few moments of the day that we spend together).
Since it could be argued that this condition could be attributed to the actions and policies of employers, could 'technosis inducement' one day surface as a new cause of action? I think that it's a long shot, but who knows these days? I can imagine a creative tort lawyer arguing that an employer's conduct constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress, or maybe even intentional infliction of emotional distress if the actions are particularly egregious. I suppose we will have to see...