Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffmotionprobationmotion to dismiss
tortplaintifflitigationliabilitywillprobationappellant

Related Cases

Ra v. Superior Court, 154 Cal.App.4th 142, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 539, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,413
View Case »
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 99 So.3d 50 (Mem), 2012-1238 (La. 10/26/12)
View Case »
Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co., 310 Or. 206, 797 P.2d 1019
View Case »
Le v. Lautrup, 271 Neb. 931, 716 N.W.2d 713
View Case »
Duffey Law Office, S.C. v. Tank Transport, Inc., 194 Wis.2d 674, 535 N.W.2d 91, 63 USLW 2771
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

West v. Media General Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640, 29 Media L. Rep. 2454

Facts

This case arose from a multi-part investigative news report aired by WDEF–TV 12 in Chattanooga, which involved the plaintiffs, Charmaine West and First Alternative Probation Counseling, Inc., and their relationship with the Hamilton County General Sessions Court. The plaintiffs claimed that the news report falsely stated their business was illegal and implied that West had an inappropriate relationship with a judge. Media General filed a motion to dismiss the false light invasion of privacy claim, prompting the District Court to certify a question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding the recognition of this tort in Tennessee.

This suit arises out of a multi-part investigative news report aired by WDEF–TV 12 in Chattanooga about the relationship between the plaintiffs [Charmaine West and First Alternative Probation Counseling, Inc.] and the Hamilton County General Sessions Court, and in particular, one of the general sessions court judges.

Issue

Do the courts of Tennessee recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and if so, what are the parameters and elements of that tort?

Do the courts of Tennessee recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and if so, what are the parameters and elements of that tort?

Rule

Tennessee recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy, which is defined by Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977). The elements include that the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter.

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.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that false light is a distinct tort separate from defamation, emphasizing that the subjective injury to privacy interests warrants its recognition. The court noted that while there may be overlaps with defamation, the differences justify separate treatment. The court also highlighted the necessity of proving that the publicity was highly offensive to a reasonable person, which serves to limit frivolous claims.

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.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the tort of false light invasion of privacy is recognized in Tennessee and that the elements of this tort are accurately stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The court directed the Clerk to transmit a copy of the opinion and taxed costs to the petitioner, Media General Convergence, Inc.

In response to the certified question, we conclude that the courts of Tennessee recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and that Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977), as modified by the discussion above, is an accurate statement of the tort.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiffs, as the court recognized the tort of false light invasion of privacy, allowing them to pursue their claim.

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.

You must be