## Facts

- William Froelich was hospitalized at St. Francis Hospital in Wichita, Kansas.
- Burneta Adair was involved in separate defamation litigation in which Froelich’s alleged relationship with Adair’s former husband was relevant to Adair’s defense.
- Syd Werbin, a Sedgwick County deputy sheriff and Adair’s friend, learned Froelich was hospitalized and relayed that information to Adair.
- Adair expressed interest in obtaining Froelich’s hair for analysis and comparison in connection with the defamation dispute.
- Froelich alleged Werbin arranged for a hospital orderly to enter Froelich’s room and obtain hair samples without Froelich’s knowledge or consent.
- The orderly obtained hair from Froelich’s hairbrush and from an adhesive bandage discarded by a nurse.
- Froelich later learned his hair had been taken and sued Werbin for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, seeking damages for mental distress.

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining hair from a hospitalized patient’s room without the patient’s knowledge or consent constitutes an actionable intrusion upon seclusion under Kansas law.
2. Whether the conduct was sufficiently offensive to a reasonable person and of a type that would cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

## Decision

- The district court, after a bench trial, entered judgment for Werbin, finding no actionable intrusion.
- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that, on the facts found by the trial court, Froelich failed to prove an intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person or would cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence and upheld the trial court’s findings as supported by substantial competent evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Kansas recognizes invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion.
- Liability requires an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, upon another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs.
- The intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person and of a kind that would cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
- Not every unauthorized acquisition of personal material is actionable; the offensiveness threshold is objective and fact-dependent.
- On appellate review after a bench trial, findings supported by substantial competent evidence will not be disturbed.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendant because the unauthorized collection of hair from a brush and discarded bandage in a hospital setting, as found by the trial court, did not meet Kansas’s objective threshold for a highly offensive intrusion upon seclusion causing the type of distress recognized by law.


Froelich v. Werbin, 219 Kan. 461, 548 P.2d 482 (Kan. 1976)