## Facts

- Tom Hamilton sued his former wife, Burneta Adair, for defamation after she stated he was homosexual and that William Froelich was his lover.
- Because truth was a defense to the defamation claim, Adair sought evidence bearing on the truth of her statements.
- In October 1969, Froelich was a patient at a Wichita hospital; Adair learned he was hospitalized and feared he might be unavailable to testify.
- Adair discussed with a deputy sheriff friend, Syd Werbin, the idea of obtaining Froelich’s hair for laboratory analysis and comparison (she previously had obtained and analyzed hair associated with Hamilton).
- Werbin arranged for a hospital orderly to obtain hair from Froelich’s hospital room by collecting combings from his hairbrush and a discarded adhesive bandage with hair attached; Werbin delivered the items to Adair, who had them analyzed.
- Testimony conflicted on whether Adair explicitly asked Werbin to obtain the samples or whether Werbin acted on his own initiative after their discussion.
- Froelich did not know of the collection when it occurred; he later learned of it during discovery in the defamation litigation and claimed emotional distress.
- Froelich sued Adair for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, seeking damages for mental suffering.

## Issues

1. Whether Adair’s involvement in obtaining and analyzing hair taken from Froelich’s hospital room constituted an actionable intrusion upon seclusion.
2. Whether the alleged intrusion was “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” as required for liability.
3. Whether the evidence sufficiently established Adair’s responsibility for the intrusion.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying Froelich recovery against Adair.
- The court held that Froelich did not prove an actionable intrusion upon seclusion under the “highly offensive to a reasonable person” standard.
- The limited nature of the conduct and its litigation-related purpose weighed against liability.
- Conflicting evidence regarding Adair’s direction or control over the collection further supported denial of relief.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires: (1) an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, (2) into another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs, (3) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) resulting harm.
- The offensiveness element is objective; a plaintiff’s subjective distress does not establish liability without conduct meeting the “highly offensive” threshold.
- Not every unauthorized acquisition of personal material is actionable; liability generally requires a serious interference with privacy rather than a trivial or technical intrusion.
- Context matters in assessing offensiveness, including the nature of what was obtained, the means used (e.g., no bodily invasion), and the purpose (including evidence-gathering related to pending litigation).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of Froelich’s intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because the collection of hair from items in his hospital room for use in litigation did not amount to an objectively highly offensive intrusion, and Adair’s responsibility for directing the conduct was not clearly established.


Froelich v. Adair, 516 P.2d 993 (Kan. 1973)