Opinion ID: 1984324
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Light and Recognition of the Tort

Text: Specifically at issue in this case is whether Tennessee recognizes the separate tort of false light invasion of privacy. Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) defines the tort of false light: One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. A majority of jurisdictions addressing false light claims have chosen to recognize false light as a separate actionable tort. Most of these jurisdictions have adopted either the analysis of the tort given by Dean Prosser or the definition provided by the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C.Cir.1990); Phillips v. Smalley Maint. Servs., Inc., 435 So.2d 705 (Ala.1983); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 783 P.2d 781 (1989); Dodrill v. Arkansas Democrat Co., 265 Ark. 628, 590 S.W.2d 840 (1979); Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc., 42 Cal.3d 234, 228 Cal.Rptr. 215, 721 P.2d 97 (1986)(in bank); Cabaniss v. Hipsley, 114 Ga.App. 367, 151 S.E.2d 496 (1966); Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 448 A.2d 1317 (1982); Agency for Health Care Admn. v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., 678 So.2d 1239 (Fla.1996)(recognizing four separate categories constituting invasion of privacy); Hoskins v. Howard, 132 Idaho 311, 971 P.2d 1135 (1998); Lovgren v. Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton, 126 Ill.2d 411, 128 Ill.Dec. 542, 534 N.E.2d 987 (1989); Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind.1991); Anderson v. Low Rent Housing Comm'n of Muscatine, 304 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1981); Finlay v. Finlay, 18 Kan.App.2d 479, 856 P.2d 183 (1993)(stating that false light is a subdivision of the broader tort of invasion of privacy); McCall v. Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky.1981); Jaubert v. Crowley Post-Signal, Inc., 375 So.2d 1386 (La.1979); Harnish v. Herald-Mail Co., 264 Md. 326, 286 A.2d 146 (1972); MacKerron v. Madura, 445 A.2d 680 (Me.1982)(citing Equifax Services, Inc. v. Cohen, 420 A.2d 189, 200 (Me.1980)); Prescott v. Bay St. Louis Newspapers, Inc., 497 So.2d 77 (Miss.1986); Lence v. Hagadone Inv. Co., 258 Mont. 433, 853 P.2d 1230 (1993); Turner v. Welliver, 226 Neb. 275, 411 N.W.2d 298 (1987)(noting that false light is codified in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 20-204 (1983)); Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282, 537 A.2d 284 (1988); Moore v. Sun Publ'g Corp., 118 N.M. 375, 881 P.2d 735 (Ct.App.1994); McCormack v. Oklahoma Publ'g Co., 613 P.2d 737 (Okla. 1980); Dean v. Guard Publ'g Co., Inc., 73 Or.App. 656, 699 P.2d 1158 (1985); Santillo v. Reedel, 430 Pa.Super. 290, 634 A.2d 264 (1993); Montgomery Ward v. Shope, 286 N.W.2d 806 (S.D. 1979)(acknowledging that false light lies within the scope of invasion of privacy); Cox v. Hatch, 761 P.2d 556 (Utah 1988); Eastwood v. Cascade Broad. Co., 106 Wash.2d 466, 722 P.2d 1295 (1986); Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (1983). A minority of jurisdictions have refused to recognize false light invasion of privacy. See Falwell v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd., 521 F.Supp. 1204 (W.D.Va.1981)(noting that Virginia has statutory right of privacy similar to that of New York); Elm Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc., 403 Mass. 779, 532 N.E.2d 675 (1989); Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn.1998); Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broad. Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.1986)(en banc)(refusing to recognize false light on these facts); Howell v. New York Post Co., Inc., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350, 612 N.E.2d 699 (1993)(holding that New York has statutory invasion of privacy law that does not afford recognition of common law false light); Renwick v. News & Observer Publ'g Co., 310 N.C. 312, 312 S.E.2d 405 (1984); Hougum v. Valley Mem'l Homes, 574 N.W.2d 812 (N.D.1998); Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666 (1983); Brown v. Pearson, 326 S.C. 409, 483 S.E.2d 477 (Ct.App.1997); Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1994); Zinda v. Louisiana Pacific Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548 (1989)(recognizing that statutory right to privacy excludes false light). Among these jurisdictions, Virginia, New York, and Wisconsin refused to recognize the common law tort of false light because their state legislatures adopted privacy statutes that do not expressly include the tort. Perhaps the most significant case upholding the minority view is Renwick v. News and Observer Publishing Co., 310 N.C. 312, 312 S.E.2d 405 (1984). In Renwick , the Supreme Court of North Carolina expressed two main arguments for not recognizing the tort of false light invasion of privacy in North Carolina. First, the protection provided by false light either duplicates or overlaps the interests already protected by the defamation torts of libel and slander. 312 S.E.2d at 412. Second, to the extent it would allow recovery beyond that permitted in actions for libel or slander, [recognition of false light] would tend to add to the tension already existing between the First Amendment and the law of torts in cases of this nature. Id. After analyzing the standards of constitutional protection provided by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), the North Carolina Supreme Court was unwilling to extend protection to plaintiffs under false light partly because of a concern that recognition of the tort would reduce judicial efficiency by requiring our courts to consider two claims for the same relief which, if not identical, would not differ significantly. Id. at 413. Further, the court asserted that such additional remedies as we might be required to make available to plaintiffs should we recognize false light invasion of privacy claims are not sufficient to justify the recognition in this jurisdiction of such inherently constitutionally suspect claims for relief. Id. (emphasis in original). After considering the relevant authorities, we agree with the majority of jurisdictions that false light should be recognized as a distinct, actionable tort. While the law of defamation and false light invasion of privacy conceivably overlap in some ways, we conclude that the differences between the two torts warrant their separate recognition. The Supreme Court of West Virginia noted the following differences in Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc .: In defamation law only statements that are false are actionable, truth is, almost universally, a defense. In privacy law, other than in false light cases, the facts published are true; indeed it is the very truth of the facts that creates the claimed invasion of privacy. [5] Secondly, in defamation cases the interest sought to be protected is the objective one of reputation, either economic, political, or personal, in the outside world. In privacy cases the interest affected is the subjective one of injury to [the] inner person. Thirdly, where the issue is truth or falsity, the marketplace of ideas furnishes a forum in which the battle can be fought. In privacy cases, resort to the marketplace simply accentuates the injury. 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70, 83 (1984)(quoting Thomas Emerson, The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press, 14 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. 329, 333 (1979)). With respect to the judicial economy concern expressed by the North Carolina Supreme Court, we find that such concerns are outweighed in this instance by the need to maintain the integrity of the right to privacy in this State. Dean Prosser's analysis identifies the nature of invasion of privacy, and we believe false light complements the remaining invasion of privacy torts. Certainly situations may exist in which persons have had attributed to them certain qualities, characteristics, or beliefs that, while not injurious to their reputation, place those persons in an undesirable false light. [6] However, in situations such as these, victims of invasion of privacy would be without recourse under defamation law. False light therefore provides a viable, and we believe necessary, action for relief apart from defamation. The Appellant, and likewise the minority view, predict that recognition of the tort will result in unnecessary litigation, even in situations where positive or laudatory characteristics are attributed to individuals. We disagree. Such needless litigation is foreclosed by Section 652E (a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which imposes liability for false light only if the publicity is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Comment c to Section 652E notes that the hypersensitive plaintiff cannot recover under a false light claim where the publicized matter attributed to the plaintiff was, even if intentionally falsified, not a seriously offensive misstatement. Complete and perfect accuracy in published reports concerning any individual is seldom attainable by any reasonable effort, and most minor errors, such as a wrong address for his home, or a mistake in the date when he entered his employment or similar unimportant details of his career, would not in the absence of special circumstances give any serious offense to a reasonable person. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652E cmt. c (1977). Thus, the highly offensive to a reasonable person prong of Section 652E deters needless litigation. [7] Comment b to Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts addresses the concern that one publication may result in multiple recoveries. If, in addition to false light, a plaintiff also asserts an alternative theory of recovery under libel, the plaintiff can proceed upon either theory, or both, although he can have but one recovery for a single instance of publicity.  Id. (emphasis added). [8] We must also disagree with the North Carolina Supreme Court that recognition of false light would destabilize current First Amendment protections of speech. In our view, the actual malice standard adequately protects First Amendment rights when the plaintiff is a public official, a public figure, or the publicity is a matter of public interest. This standard was first adopted in a defamation case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), in which the Court held that public officials may not recover damages for defamatory statements relating to their official duties unless the statement was made with actual maliceknowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. In Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), the Court extended the actual malice standard to alleged defamatory statements about matters of public interest. [9] In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court held that negligence is a sufficient constitutional standard for defamation claims asserted by a private individual about matters of private concern, but the Court has not yet decided which standard applies to false light claims. See Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct. 465, 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974). In light of the uncertain position of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the constitutional standard for false light claims brought by private individuals about matters of private interest, many courts and Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts adopt actual malice as the standard for all false light claims. See Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 448 A.2d 1317, 1330 (1982); Lovgren v. Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton, 126 Ill.2d 411, 128 Ill.Dec. 542, 534 N.E.2d 987, 991(1989); McCall v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 623 S.W.2d 882, 888 (Ky.1981)(Until the Supreme Court has spoken, we must comply with the ruling in Hill . . . . In the event the Gertz rule is applied, we believe the desirable standard of fault is that of simple negligence which we have adopted in this opinion for libel cases.); Dean v. Guard Publ'g Co., Inc., 73 Or.App. 656, 699 P.2d 1158, 1161 (1985). We hold that actual malice is the appropriate standard for false light claims when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure, or when the claim is asserted by a private individual about a matter of public concern. We do not, however, adopt the actual malice standard for false light claims brought by private plaintiffs about matters of private concern. In Memphis Publishing Co. v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn.1978), this Court adopted negligence as the standard for defamation claims asserted by private individuals about matters of private concern. Our decision to adopt a simple negligence standard in private plaintiff/private matter false light claims is the result of our conclusion that private plaintiffs in false light claims deserve the same heightened protection that private plaintiffs receive in defamation cases. Therefore, when false light invasion of privacy claims are asserted by a private plaintiff regarding a matter of private concern, the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant publisher was negligent in placing the plaintiff in a false light. For all other false light claims, we believe that the actual malice standard achieves the appropriate balance between First Amendment guarantees and privacy interests. With respect to the parameters of the tort of false light, we conclude that Sections 652F-I of the Restatement (Second) of Torts adequately address its limits. Sections 652F and 652G note that absolute and conditional privileges apply to the invasion of privacy torts, and we hereby affirm that such privileges previously recognized in Tennessee apply to false light claims. Damages are addressed in Section 652H of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), which provides: One who has established a cause of action for invasion of his privacy is entitled to recover damages for (a) the harm to his interest in privacy resulting from the invasion; (b) his mental distress proved to have been suffered if it is of a kind that normally results from such an invasion; and (c) special damage of which the invasion is a legal cause. Consistent with defamation, we emphasize that plaintiffs seeking to recover on false light claims must specifically plead and prove damages allegedly suffered from the invasion of their privacy. See Memphis Publishing, 569 S.W.2d at 419. As with defamation, there must be proof of actual damages. See Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152 (Tenn.Ct.App.1997). The plaintiff need not prove special damages or out of pocket losses necessarily, as evidence of injury to standing in the community, humiliation, or emotional distress is sufficient. 959 S.W.2d at 164. In addition, for purposes of clarification, this Court adopts Section 652I of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) which recognizes that the right to privacy is a personal right. As such, the right cannot attach to corporations or other business entities, may not be assigned to another, nor may it be asserted by a member of the individual's family, even if brought after the death of the individual. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652I cmt. a-c (1977). Therefore, only those persons who have been placed in a false light may recover for invasion of their privacy. Finally, we recognize that application of different statutes of limitation for false light and defamation cases could undermine the effectiveness of limitations on defamation claims. Therefore, we hold that false light claims are subject to the statutes of limitation that apply to libel and slander, as stated in Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 28-3-103 and 28-3-104(a)(1), depending on the form of the publicity, whether in spoken or fixed form.