Opinion ID: 901080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of evidence supporting jury's verdict on invasion of privacy claim

Text: [¶ 19.] To recover on an invasion of the right to privacy claim, a claimant must show an unreasonable, unwarranted, serious and offensive intrusion upon the seclusion of another. Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc., 517 N.W.2d 419, 424 (S.D.1994) (citing Baldwin v. First Nat'l Bank of Black Hills, 362 N.W.2d 85, 88 (S.D.1985)). Furthermore, [t]he invasion must be one which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities. Montgomery Ward v. Shope, 286 N.W.2d 806, 808 (S.D.1979) (citations omitted). [¶ 20.] In resolving sufficiency of evidence issues on appeal, this court should examine the record to determine only if there is competent and substantial evidence to support the verdict. Kjerstad, 517 N.W.2d at 424 (quoting Holmes v. Wegman Oil Co., 492 N.W.2d 107, 111 (S.D.1992)). All conflicts are resolved and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the prevailing party. Id. [¶ 21.] Although we have not addressed an invasion of privacy claim based on the opening and reading of personal mail, other jurisdictions have found that such a claim lies in an action for invasion of privacy. See Birnbaum v. U.S., 588 F.2d 319, 326 (2d Cir.1978) (recognizing state law claim against a private person for intrusion of privacy based on opening and reading sealed mail); Vernars v. Young, 539 F.2d 966, 969 (3d Cir.1976) (recognizing cause of action and indicating private individuals have a reasonable expectation that their personal mail will not be opened and read by unauthorized persons); and Doe v. Kohn, Nast & Graf, P.C., 866 F.Supp. 190, 195-96 (E.D.Pa.1994)(indicating [a]n employer is not authorized to open mail addressed to a person at his workplace that appears to be personal[,] and reasonable minds could differ as to whether intrusion occurred when letters were opened, copied and retained) (citation omitted)). [¶ 22.] In this case, there is sufficient evidence in the record indicating that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Farner had intruded upon Roth's seclusion, and the issue was properly submitted to the jury. Schmidt testified that after he opened the envelope addressed to Roth at Farner's business address, Schmidt realized it was from a law firm and meant for Roth, personally. Yet, Schmidt read the entire contents of the packet, made photocopies and disseminated them to his superior at Farner. Additionally, there was circumstantial evidence that a second letter from the same law firm addressed to Roth at Farner's business address was opened, read, photocopied and disseminated at Farner. [¶ 23.] Therefore, there was competent and substantial evidence upon which a jury could find Farner liable for invading Roth's privacy.