## Facts

- Charles R. Jones, an Alabama Power Company (APCo) employee, suffered a work-related injury in 1990 and sought workers’ compensation benefits; APCo disputed the extent of his disability.
- APCo hired I.C.U. Investigations, Inc. (ICU) to conduct surveillance of Jones for 11–12 days in February–March 1998.
- ICU investigators videotaped Jones from public roads and other public places; they did not enter Jones’s property or film inside his home.
- Jones lived in a mobile home near the intersection of Highway 77 and County Road 79; his front yard was visible from those roads.
- The surveillance captured Jones urinating in his front yard on multiple occasions.
- ICU copied and provided the surveillance tapes to APCo’s counsel for use in the workers’ compensation dispute.
- Jones sued ICU (among others) for invasion of privacy; the case went to trial solely on the invasion-of-privacy claim against ICU.
- The jury awarded Jones $75,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages; ICU’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JML) were denied, and ICU appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Jones presented substantial evidence of a “wrongful intrusion” sufficient to support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim where surveillance occurred from public vantage points and recorded conduct visible to the public.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Jones.
- The Court held Jones failed to present substantial evidence of a wrongful intrusion into privacy.
- The Court rendered judgment as a matter of law for ICU.

## Legal Principles

- Alabama recognizes invasion of privacy, including intrusion upon seclusion, as a wrongful intrusion into private activities that would outrage or cause shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
- Observation or recording of a person’s activities in public places, or in areas exposed to public view, is generally not an actionable invasion of privacy.
- Surveillance undertaken for a legitimate investigative purpose, confined to what is observable from public locations and without entry onto private property or peering into private interiors, is not a wrongful intrusion as a matter of law.
- A jury verdict cannot stand if the plaintiff fails to present substantial evidence supporting the required elements of the tort.

## Conclusion

Because ICU videotaped only what could be seen from public roads and other public places—including Jones’s conduct in a front yard visible to passersby—the evidence did not support a finding of wrongful intrusion into seclusion, and ICU was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


I.C.U. Investigations, Inc. v. Jones, 780 So. 2d 685 (Ala. 2000)