[Torts] 11. Hamberger v. Eastman (1964)

[허지예]

Hamberger v. Eastman – 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239 (1964)

Fact

The plaintiff(P), Hamberger, rented a house from the defendant(D). P's house is adjacent to D's house, and D had eavesdropped on the conversations from the bedroom of P and his wife by using an audio recording device for almost a year. P suffered mental and physical distress and humiliation after discovering the recording device and realizing that their intimate conversations had been overheard. P sued D for invasion of privacy. D moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The trial court reserved the judgment and transferred the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court for review.

Issue

Whether eavesdropping on a person's private conversations through an electronic recording device constitutes an actionable intrusion upon seclusion even without physical entry into the person’s house.

Rule

A person who unreasonably and seriously interferes with another's private affairs known to others is liable to the other if under the circumstances that D should have realized that it would be offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities and such intrusion is not limited to a physical invasion of his home or his quarters and extended to electronic eavesdropping on private conversations by means of wiretapping and microphones.

Application

The place where D installed the recording device was a private bedroom where intimate conversations with his partner occur. It was a serious and unreasonable interference because he has eavesdropped on P’s private conversations for almost a year. A person with ordinary sensibilities would be highly offended from being overheard his intimate bedroom conversations. Even though D didn’t enter the P’s house, the recording device allowed him to monitor the couple’s intimate conversations in their home. Thus, lack of physical entry does not prevent D from being liable for intrusion upon seclusion. Therefore, D is liable or invasion of privacy.

Conclusion

The motion to dismiss should be denied because the complaint stated a valid claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

<동영상 분석>

-가장 어려웠던 질문

Injury가 없는 민사 사건의 경우 손해배상을 어떻게 측정할까?

A: 개인의 명예에 대한 손해계산은 개인의 사회적 지위나 평판에 따라 크게 차이가 난다. 지불하는 사람의 경제적 능력도 고려가 된다. 

-내가 잘못 생각한 질문

Q: 불법적인 내용을 도청한 것에 대해 invasion of privacy로 소송할 수 있는가?
내 답변: 있다. 아무리 동물학대, 아동학대 등의 불법적인 행위가 의심된다 하더라도 개인이 사적으로 도청을 하는 것은 법에 어긋난다고 생각한다. 불법적인 행동에 대한 도청을 허용하면 무고한 사람들의 사생활 침해가 많이 일어날 것 같다. 불법행위는 신고 등을 통해 합법적인 방법으로 처벌할 수 있는 방법이 있다.
A: 뉴햄프셔 주에 따르면 불법행위는 privacy의 보호대상이 되지 않는다. 남에게 피해를 주기 때문에.