## Facts

- Kathleen Knight was admitted to Penobscot Bay Medical Center in labor on January 8, 1977.
- Dr. Albert J. Lantinen, Jr., was the attending obstetrician; registered nurse Sandra Robie was on duty beyond her shift due to a snowstorm.
- Sandra Robie’s husband, Theodore Robie, came to the hospital expecting to drive her home and stayed to wait.
- Nurse Robie asked Dr. Lantinen for permission to have Theodore “witness a birth.”
- Dr. Lantinen obtained consent from another patient (Mrs. Allen) for Theodore to observe her delivery, but complications arose.
- Dr. Lantinen redirected Theodore to the area where Kathleen Knight’s child would be born, anticipating a normal delivery.
- Theodore observed from a viewing window and did not see the actual delivery process.
- The Knights sued the hospital, doctor, nurse, and Theodore Robie, alleging (among other claims) invasion of privacy based on a stranger being allowed to observe without their consent.
- The jury returned a defense verdict on all claims; the Knights appealed only the invasion-of-privacy judgment, challenging the jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested instruction stating the plaintiffs had a legal right to delivery-room privacy that could be overridden only by necessity and consent.
2. Whether the given instructions misstated or inadequately stated the elements of intrusion upon seclusion, including intent, objective offensiveness, and whose privacy interest was protected.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for all defendants.
- The court held the jury instructions correctly stated the elements of intrusion upon seclusion: intentional intrusion into seclusion or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The court held the plaintiffs’ proposed “right to privacy in the delivery room” instruction was properly refused because it was incomplete and potentially misleading.
- The court found no error in declining to quote the Restatement verbatim where the substance of the governing standards was accurately conveyed.
- The court rejected challenges relating to nominal or presumed damages because the jury found no invasion of privacy, making damages instructions immaterial to the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion upon another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The tort protects personal seclusion and mental tranquility; it is not established merely by violation of institutional practice or professional norms.
- A proposed instruction may be refused if it omits essential elements (including intent) or suggests liability based on unauthorized presence alone.
- Trial courts need not quote Restatement provisions verbatim if the instructions accurately communicate the controlling legal standards.
- In medical-privacy intrusion claims, the primary protected interest is the bodily and personal privacy of the person subjected to the intrusion; related family interests must be analyzed separately.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict because the jury was properly instructed that liability for invasion of privacy required an intentional intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and the plaintiffs’ requested instruction improperly implied near strict liability based on lack of consent alone.


Knight v. Penobscot Bay Med. Ctr., 420 A.2d 915 (Me. 1980)