This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was employed by Boise (D) as a glue mixer. He strained his back when he fell while carrying a 100-pound sack of flour to a glue machine. P was taken to the office of Dr. D. H. Searing in Salem. Dr. Searing sent P to the hospital, where he was placed in traction. Dr. Searing wrote to Richard Cyphert, then in charge of the Boise Cascade Workmen's Compensation program, advising that P might be disabled for as much as 12 months. Dr. John D. White was called in as a consultant. He performed a myelogram on P and reported that he found no evidence of nerve root or lumbar disc disease and that it was possible that P was 'consciously malingering.' Cyphert notified P that his compensation payments would be terminated. Cyphert was also informed that P was performing part-time work for a mortuary while he was ostensibly disabled. P received a written release from Dr. White permitting him to return to work with the restriction that he was not to lift more than 50 pounds. P returned to work and was assigned an easier job, but was unable to work due to continued pain in his hip. P consulted an attorney, who filed a request for a hearing with the Workmen's Compensation Board, asking that P's temporary disability payments be reinstated. Cyphert hired United Diversified Services, Inc. (D), to conduct a surveillance of P to check the validity of the claim. United (D) assigned two of its employees, Rick Oulette and Steve Collette, to conduct surveillance. The two investigators took 18 rolls of movie film of P while he was engaged in various activities on his property outside his home. Some of the film showed P mowing his lawn, rototilling his garden, and fishing from a bridge near his home. On one occasion, while Collette was near the walnut trees, he was seen by P. When Collette realized he had been seen, he left the area. P did not learn about the film and picture taking until the film was shown at the Workmen's Compensation Hearing. The investigators did not question any of P's neighbors or friends and limited their activities to taking pictures while P was engaged in various activities outside his home. These activities could have been viewed either by neighbors or passersby on the highway. P testified that he was not embarrassed or upset by anything that appeared in the films. P was very angry about being filmed. P sued Ds for invasion of privacy and trespass. The court granted Ds’ motion for nonsuit. The trespass claim went to trial, and P was awarded $250 but no punitive damages. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.