Hamberger v. Eastman
11 A.L.R. 3d 1288, 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unconsented and offensive intrusion into a person's physical and mental solitude or seclusion, such as the installation of a listening device in a private space, constitutes an actionable tort for invasion of privacy. This cause of action does not require proof that any information was actually overheard, recorded, or published to a third party.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs, a married couple, rented a dwelling from the defendant, their landlord.
- The defendant lived in an adjacent house.
- Without the plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, the defendant installed a listening and recording device in the plaintiffs' bedroom.
- This device was connected by wires to the defendant's house and was capable of transmitting and recording sounds and conversations from the plaintiffs' bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant in the trial court.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' case, arguing that it failed to state a valid cause of action because the right of privacy was not a recognized tort in the state.
- The trial court reserved and transferred the legal question presented by the motion to dismiss to the state's highest court for a ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's secret installation of a listening device in the bedroom of his tenants constitute an actionable tort for invasion of privacy, even if it is not alleged that anyone actually listened to or recorded any conversations?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenison, C.J.
Yes, a landlord's secret installation of a listening device in the bedroom of his tenants constitutes an actionable tort for invasion of privacy. The court formally recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy, adopting the four distinct categories articulated by Prosser, with this case focusing specifically on 'intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude or seclusion.' The court reasoned that this tort is not limited to physical invasions but extends to electronic eavesdropping with devices like microphones and wiretaps. The installation of a 'bug' in a married couple's bedroom is a quintessential example of an intrusion that would be offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities and exceeds the limits of decency. Crucially, the court rejected the defendant's argument that a violation requires proof of listening or publication, holding that the tort of intrusion does not require publicity or communication to third persons; the offensive intrusion itself is the actionable wrong.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing the common law tort of invasion of privacy within the jurisdiction, specifically adopting the influential four-category framework developed by legal scholar William Prosser. By recognizing 'intrusion upon seclusion' as an independent cause of action, the decision provides a legal remedy against technological surveillance and other forms of offensive snooping. The most critical aspect of the ruling is its holding that the tort is complete upon the intrusion itself, without any need to prove that private information was actually captured or disseminated, thereby lowering the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs and strengthening protections for personal solitude.
