McLain v. Boise Cascade Corporation
533 P.2d 343 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who files a personal injury claim waives their right to privacy to the extent of a reasonable and unobtrusive investigation. A minor trespass by an investigator does not automatically convert an otherwise reasonable surveillance into an actionable invasion of privacy, especially when the subject's activities are open to public view.
Facts:
- McLain, an employee of Boise Cascade Corporation, injured his back at work and filed a worker's compensation claim.
- A consulting doctor reported that McLain might be "consciously malingering," leading Boise Cascade to suspect the validity of his claim.
- After McLain sought reinstatement of disability payments, Boise Cascade hired United Diversified Services, Inc., to conduct surveillance on him.
- United's investigators secretly filmed McLain engaged in various physical activities, including mowing his lawn and rototilling his garden, on his large, two-acre residential property.
- To obtain the footage, an investigator filmed from the periphery of McLain's property, which likely involved crossing a fence and trespassing on a portion of McLain's land.
- McLain's activities, which were filmed during daylight hours, were visible to his neighbors and to passersby on a nearby public road.
- McLain was not aware of the surveillance while it was occurring and only learned of it when the films were shown at his compensation hearing.
- McLain testified that he was not embarrassed by the activities shown in the films, but was angered by the secret filming and the fact that the investigators were on his property without permission.
Procedural Posture:
- McLain filed a lawsuit against United Diversified Services, Inc., in a state trial court, asserting causes of action for invasion of privacy and civil trespass.
- At trial, the court granted an involuntary nonsuit, effectively dismissing McLain's claim for invasion of privacy.
- The court allowed the trespass claim to go to the jury but withdrew from its consideration McLain's request for punitive damages.
- The jury found in favor of McLain on the trespass claim and awarded him $250 in nominal damages.
- McLain, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his invasion of privacy claim and its withdrawal of the punitive damages claim to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 an otherwise reasonable and unobtrusive surveillance of a personal injury claimant become an actionable invasion of privacy solely because the investigator committed a minor trespass onto the claimant's property to film activities that were visible to the public?
Opinions:
Majority - McAllister, J.
No. An otherwise reasonable surveillance does not become an actionable invasion of privacy simply because the investigator committed a minor trespass. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires an intrusion that would be "highly offensive to a reasonable man." A person who makes a claim for personal injuries must expect reasonable inquiry and investigation into their claim, which circumscribes their interest in privacy. In this case, the surveillance was unobtrusive, as McLain was unaware of it, and the activities filmed were exposed to public view. Trespass is merely one factor to consider in determining whether the surveillance was unreasonable; it does not automatically make the conduct actionable. The trespass here was on the periphery of the property and did not involve harassment or peering into private windows, thus it did not render the otherwise reasonable investigation "highly offensive."
Concurring - Tongue, J.
The author concurs in the result, but based on narrower grounds. The judgment should be affirmed because the evidence relating to the nature and extent of any alleged trespass upon plaintiff’s property was insufficient and uncertain.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that in invasion of privacy cases involving surveillance, the overall reasonableness and obtrusiveness of the investigation are paramount, rather than a single technical violation like a minor trespass. The court balances the social utility of exposing fraudulent injury claims against an individual's right to privacy, signaling that claimants have a diminished expectation of privacy regarding activities conducted in public view. This holding gives investigators more leeway, clarifying that the 'highly offensive' standard requires a substantial intrusion into truly private affairs, not just a technical wrong committed on the periphery of a person's property. Future courts will likely weigh the degree and nature of any trespass as one of several factors in assessing the reasonableness of surveillance.
Unlock the full brief for McLain v. Boise Cascade Corporation