Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court recognized false-light invasion of privacy as an actionable tort under Ohio law and adopted the elements stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E. The court held that liability requires publicity placing another in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, coupled with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity and resulting false light. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case.
Holdings
- Ohio recognizes false-light invasion of privacy as a distinct, actionable tort.
- In Ohio, a false-light claim requires publicity placing another before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, together with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio recognizes a cause of action for false-light invasion of privacy.
- If recognized, what elements govern a false-light invasion-of-privacy claim in Ohio.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (12)
- Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340 (1956)(followed)
- Sustin v. Fee, 69 Ohio St. 2d 143, 431 N.E.2d 992 (1982)(discussed)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 6 Ohio St. 3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666 (1983)(limited)
- M.J. DiCorpo, Inc. v. Sweeney, 69 Ohio St. 3d 497, 634 N.E.2d 203 (1994)(distinguished)
- West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001)(followed)
- Denver Publishing Co. v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893 (Colo. 2002)(distinguished_from)
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (1984)(discussed)
- Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245 (1974)(discussed)
- Spahn v. Julian Messner, Inc., 18 N.Y.2d 324, 221 N.E.2d 543 (1966)(discussed)
- Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1994)(discussed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…