§39.1 Generally

The Case: Nairon v. Holland , No. M2006-00321-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 626953 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 1, 2007).

The Basic Facts: "Reginald Nairon brought this action against Horace Joel Holland and Holland Medical Equipment, Inc., claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy resulting from 'harassing and abusive' telephone calls made to the plaintiff by Mr. Holland and others connected with him." Id. at *1.

The Bottom Line:

• "Tennessee has adopted the common law invasion of privacy tort described in the [RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 652B (1977)]. Givens v. Mullikin, 75 S.W.3d 383, 411-12 (Tenn. 2002); Roberts v. Essex Microtel Assocs., II, L.P., 46 S.W.3d 205, 209-11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Section 652B provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

  One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
  
  Comment:
  
  a. The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man.
  
  d. There is likewise no liability unless the interference with the plaintiff's seclusion is a substantial one, of a kind that would be highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, as the result of conduct to which the reasonable man would strongly object. Thus there is no liability for knocking at the plaintiff's door, or calling him to the telephone on one occasion or even two or three, to demand payment of a debt. It is only when the telephone calls are repeated with such persistence and frequency as to amount to a course of hounding the plaintiff, that becomes a substantial burden to his existence, that his privacy is invaded.

  (Emphasis added)." 2007 WL 626953 at *8-*9.