## Facts

- A married couple rented a house from their landlord, whose home was adjacent.
- About a year into the tenancy, the tenants discovered a concealed listening and recording device hidden in the wall of their bedroom.
- The device was connected by wires to the landlord’s house and was capable of capturing the tenants’ intimate conversations and moments.
- The tenants alleged resulting distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish.
- The tenants sued in tort, characterizing the claim as “invasion of privacy.”

## Issues

1. Whether New Hampshire recognizes a tort cause of action for unreasonable intrusion upon another’s physical and mental solitude or seclusion.
2. Whether installing a concealed listening/recording device in a tenant’s bedroom connected to the landlord’s home states such a claim.
3. Whether liability for intrusion upon seclusion requires public disclosure of the information obtained.

## Decision

- The court held that New Hampshire recognizes a tort for unreasonable and serious intrusion upon another’s physical and mental solitude or seclusion.
- The court indicated that the alleged placement of a hidden listening/recording device in the tenants’ bedroom constituted a sufficient intrusion to state a cause of action.
- The court rejected any requirement of publicity for this type of claim; the intrusion itself can complete the tort.
- The transferred questions were answered consistent with recognizing the intrusion tort, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- “Invasion of privacy” is not a single tort; it includes distinct categories, including intrusion upon seclusion.
- Intrusion upon seclusion imposes liability for an unreasonable and serious interference with a person’s private space or private activities, especially in settings where the person is entitled to be left alone.
- For intrusion upon seclusion, public dissemination of private facts is not an element; the actionable wrong is the unconsented intrusion.
- A bedroom within a rented home is a highly protected sphere of seclusion; covert surveillance there can support recovery for resulting mental suffering and humiliation.

## Conclusion

New Hampshire recognized intrusion upon seclusion as a cognizable tort and held that allegations of a landlord’s covert bedroom listening/recording device connected to his home stated a claim even without any allegation that recordings were publicized.


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