WPCs 8ߖ"Jx4 H܀mȊQ?7#)Q{?d"} ǚ[8y6{V_GX_]$YŜW4y38w`k#)ބS>*i1GQ#Mq;P˅-9*r;v3t ׅDսj<=%b dP7BҀeUѕ~{ a3~3F' 23?rUgiuJX~˗ٜRa/fkU늷0e#*qk4:/S5˖[TW]kؾS:셶 z]c}8t@/~ ?Onh!3=a?}L m|Ey=FɉWdm]>byVSέ1挺Z~1x9.7$K%u"zMsϱ[#b %# j) 0UN 0 Diw z+4 "*| mBNYY^ [Eg 0i 0] 0N 0< 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0s 0R 0. 0 0 0! 0" 0M# 0$ 0$ 0% 0& 0'b^( 0f( 08) 0* 0* 00+ 0<+ 0, 0>, 0v- 0`z- 0`- 0`:. 0`. 0`. 08Z/ 0/ 02d0 00 0:1 0Y1 0_%2 0 2 0j3 04 B*|6 D/6 06 D/Y8 08 06V9 09 0:: 0^: 0<,; 0Nh; 0 ;U6<U><U*= B?=2\= 0@ D32A D-eA 0KAA ASCFD 0 E 0DE AEF)IDDKDKQQQ 0UtV 0V 0WhXq] 0q_T` 05b 0c 0c 0d 0e 0Cwf 0f 0g 0eh 06i 0j 0j 0k 0\l 0@m 0\m 00n 0o 0o 0p 0bq 0'r 0rHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0 ` R<$      1    _ TheSupremeCourtmay,atitsdiscretion,answerquestionsoflawcertifiedtoitbytheSupremeCourtofthe  UnitedStates,aCourtofAppealsoftheUnitedStates,aDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesinTennessee,oraUnited t StatesBankruptcyCourtinTennessee.Thisrulemaybeinvokedwhenthecertifyingcourtdeterminesthat,ina 8 proceedingbeforeit,therearequestionsoflawofthisstatewhichwillbedeterminativeofthecauseandastowhichit L appearstothecertifyingcourtthereisnocontrollingprecedentinthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee.  Tenn.Sup.Ct.R.23,1.(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptXq+3|x  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UH+s 2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$(|G2<$ !.8[udXXd8         0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d ( R<$      3    _InLangfordthisCourtheldthatareportpublishedinaschoolnewspaperdidnotinvadetheplaintiffsprivacy  becausethesubjectmatterofthearticlehadalreadybeenmadepartofthepublicrecord.Seealso,CoxBroad.Corp. t v.Cohn,420U.S.469,49495, SӀ95S.Ct.1029,1046,43L.Ed.2d328(1975)( [T]heprevailinglawofinvasionofprivacy 8 generallyrecognizesthattheinterestsinprivacyfadewhentheinformationinvolvedalreadyappearsonthepublic L record.);Fannv.CityofFairview,905S.W.2d167(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).(|3^$ !.8[udXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1    R<$      4    _SeealsoEvansv.Detlefsen,857F.2d330,338(6thCir.1988)(holdingthatthereisnoinvasionofprivacy  whenarrestissupportedbyprobablecause);Lineberryv.StateFarmFire&CasualtyCo.,885F.Supp.1095(M.D. t Tenn.1995);InternationalUnionv.Garner,601F.Supp.187(M.D.Tenn.1985).^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3^$ !.8[udXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK   ' ib011s170ib011s17 .     R<$      9    _ [T]heconstitutionalprotectionsforspeechandpressprecludetheapplicationoftheNewYorkstatuteto  redressfalsereportsofmattersofpublicinterestintheabsenceofproofthatthedefendantpublishedthereportwith t knowledgeofitsfalsityorinrecklessdisregardofthetruth.Time,Inc.v.Hill,385U.S.at38788,87S.Ct.at542. : R<$      2    _Intheir1891article,WarrenandBrandeisarticulatedseveralmaximsonthelimitationsoftherighttoprivacy  thatgenerallyholdtruetodayandhelpwithanunderstandingoftherighttoprivacyandthetortoffalselight: t  X1.Therighttoprivacydoesnotprohibitanypublicationofmatterwhichisofpublicorgeneral 8 interest. L 2.Therighttoprivacydoesnotprohibitthecommunicationofanymatter,thoughinitsnatureprivate,  whenthepublicationismadeundercircumstanceswhichwouldrenderitaprivilegedcommunication  accordingtothelawofslanderandlibel. H  3.Thelawwouldprobablynotgrantanyredressfortheinvasionofprivacybyoralpublicationinthe  \ absenceofspecialdamage.   4.Therighttoprivacyceasesuponthepublicationofthefactsbytheindividual,orwithhisconsent.    5.Thetruthofthematterpublisheddoesnotaffordadefence. X   6.Theabsenceof malice*inthepublisherdoesnotaffordadefence.  l  TheRighttoPrivacyat21419.  0  * Maliceasusedhereisdefinedas personalillwill,andshouldnotbeconfusedwiththestandardofactual   malicediscussedbelow.  R<$      7    _ԀIllustrationsprovidedinSection652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,(1977),arehelpfulin  understandingthelimitsofprotectionprovidedbyfalselight.Illustration9reads: t  XAisthepilotofanairplaneflyingacrossthePacific.Theplanedevelopsmotortrouble,andA 8 succeedsinlandingitafterharrowinghoursintheair.BCompanybroadcastsovertelevisiona L dramatizationoftheflight,whichenactsitinmostrespectsinanaccuratemanner.Includedinthe   broadcast,however,arescenes,knowntoBtobefalse,inwhichanactorrepresentingAisshownas  praying,reassuringpassengers,andotherwiseconductinghimselfinafictitiousmannerthatdoesnot t defamehimorinanywayreflectuponhim.WhetherthisisaninvasionofAsprivacydependson 8 whetheritisfoundbythejurythatthesceneswouldbehighlyobjectionabletoareasonablemanin L Asposition.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   ^ R<$      5    _Thefactsmaybetrueinafalselightclaim.However,theanglefromwhichthefactsarepresented,orthe  omissionofcertainmaterialfacts,resultsinplacingtheplaintiffinafalselight. Literalaccuracyofseparatestatements t willnotrenderacommunicationtruewheretheimplicationofthecommunicationasawholewasfalse....The 8 questioniswhether[thedefendant]madediscretepresentationsofinformationinafashionwhichrenderedthe L publicationsusceptibletoinferencescasting[theplaintiff]inafalselight.Santillov.Reedel,634A.2d264,267(Pa.  Super.Ct.1993)(citingLarsenv.PhiladelphiaNewspapers,_Inc.,_Ԁ543A.2d1181(Pa.Super.Ct.1988))(emphasisadded).  Therefore,theliteraltruthofthepublicizedfactsisnotadefenseinafalselightcase. g R<$      6    _Commentb,Illustration4toSection652Eprovidessuchanexample:  Aisademocrat.BinduceshimtosignapetitionnominatingCforoffice.AdiscoversthatCisa t RepublicananddemandsthatBremovehisnamefromthepetition.Brefusestodosoandcontinues 8 publiccirculationofthepetition,bearingAsname.BissubjecttoliabilitytoAforinvasionof L privacy.*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    R<$      8    _CommentdtoSection652AoftheRestatement(Second)ofTortsalsoprovidesthat,ininstanceswheremore  thanoneinvasionofprivacyisclaimedbaseduponasingleactorseriesofacts,theinjuredpartymay haveonlyone t recoveryofhisdamagesupononeorallofthedifferentgrounds.*>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  !.8[udd8     __   [u8XXdd8=[udd=@ S[uINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#[uSY#Ԉ &   June_13,_Ԁ2001Session L XX[u #[uXX\#CHARMAINEWEST,etal._v.MEDIAGENERALCONVERGENCE,INC, J etal.XX[u   ^ @@ Rule23CertifiedQuestionofLaw  ^ UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofTennessee  J No.1:00cv184,R.AllanEdgar,ChiefUnitedStatesDistrictJudge  6  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   No.M200100141SCR23CQFiledAugust23,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }    #[uXX#XX[uPursuanttoRule23oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee, #  1      ׀thisCourtaccepted x certificationofthefollowingquestionfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrict d ofTennessee: P 0  DothecourtsofTennesseerecognizethetortoffalselightinvasionofprivacy,andifso, (x whataretheparametersandelementsofthattort?d(#(# WeconcludethatTennesseerecognizesthetortoffalselightinvasionofprivacyandthatSection < 652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts(1977),asmodifiedbyourdiscussionbelow,isan ( accuratestatementoftheelementsofthistortinTennessee.Wefurtherconcludethattheparameters  ofthedoctrineareillustratedbytheCommentstoSections652Aand652EI,andbythisCourts  decisioninMemphisPublishingCo.v.Nichols,569S.W.2d412(Tenn.1978),asitappliestothe  FirstAmendmentstandardforprivateplaintiffsandthepleadingofdamages.  q Tennessee.Sup.Ct.R.23CertifiedQuestionofLaw  `!    FrankF.Drowota,III,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson,C.J.#[uXX#XX[u, 8#" _Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.#[uXX #XX[u,joined.   $$t# SamuelL._Felker_,DonaldL.Zachary,andRebeccaS._Kell_,Nashville,Tennessee,forthepetitioner, %L!% MediaGeneralConvergence,Inc.andMediaGeneralConvergence,Inc.d/b/a_WDEF_ԄTV12. &8"& ЇAnitaB._Hardeman_ԀandHarryF._Burnette_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortherespondentsCharmaine  WestandFirstAlternativeProbationandCounseling,Inc.   @@' OPINION  t  I.FactualandProceduralBackground  L        ThefactsfromwhichthiscasearosewereadequatelyprovidedintheCertificationOrderto $ t thisCourt.AsdescribedinthatOrder,therelevantfactsareasfollows:  ` Thissuitarisesoutofamultipartinvestigativenewsreportairedby_WDEF_ԄTV12  8  inChattanoogaabouttherelationshipbetweentheplaintiffs[CharmaineWestand $  FirstAlternativeProbationCounseling,Inc.]andtheHamiltonCountyGeneral   SessionsCourt,andinparticular,oneofthegeneralsessionscourtjudges.Plaintiffs   operatedaprivateprobationservicesbusiness,andwerereferredthisbusinessbythe   generalsessionscourts.Plaintiffsclaimthat_WDEF_ԄTVdefamedthemby   broadcastingfalsestatementsthattheplaintiffsbusinessisillegal.PlaintiffWest, p inparticular,claimsthatthedefendantinvadedherprivacybyimplyingthatshehad \ asexualrelationshipwithoneofthegeneralsessionjudges;andthatthegeneral H sessionsjudgesandtheplaintiffsotherwisehada cozy,andhenceimproper, 4 relationship.  p   MediaGeneralfiledamotiontodismisstheplaintiffsfalselightinvasionofprivacyclaim. H Thereafter,theDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofTennesseecertifiedtothisCourtthe 4 followingquestionoflaw:DothecourtsofTennesseerecognizethetortoffalselightinvasionof   privacy,andifso,whataretheparametersandelementsofthattort?Weacceptedcertificationof   thisquestion,and,forthereasonsstatedbelow,weconcludethatthetortoffalselightisrecognized  underTennesseelaw.TheelementsofthistortareadequatelystatedinSection652Eofthe  Restatement(Second)ofTorts(1977),asmodifiedbelow,whileSections652FIandthecomments  toSections652Aand652EIaccuratelyreflecttheparametersofthetortinTennessee. l    II.Analysis  D! A.TheRighttoPrivacy #l!       Intheseminalarticle,TheRighttoPrivacy,4_Harv_.L.Rev.193(1891),SamuelWarrenand $D # Louis_Brandeis_,expressingdisdainforthe gossipmongersoftheirtime,establishedtheconcept %0!$ oftherighttoprivacyinthecommonlaw.Thearticleexpressedcontemptforthemannerinwhich &"% technologicaladvancementunderminedonesabilitytokeepprivatemattersfromthepubliceye: '#& Theintensityandcomplexityoflife,attendantuponadvancingcivilization,have )$( renderednecessarysomeretreatfromtheworld,andman,undertherefining |*%) influenceofculture,hasbecomemoresensitivetopublicity,sothatsolitudeand h+&* privacyhavebecomemoreessentialtotheindividual;butmodernenterpriseand  inventionhave,throughinvasionsuponhisprivacy,subjectedhimtomentalpainand  distress,fargreaterthancouldbeinflictedbymerebodilyinjury.  Warren&_Brandeis_,TheRighttoPrivacyat196.Settingoutto defineanew...therighttoenjoy ` life,!therighttobeletalone,Warrenand_Brandeis_Ԁpositionedtherighttoprivacyapartfrom L  traditionaltortrecoveryrequirementsofphysicalinjuryorinfringementuponpropertyinterests.4 8  _Harv_.L.Rev.at193.d #  2       $ t   Theprotectionofprivacyrightsarestillreflectedincurrentlaw,owingmuchtotheefforts  L  ofDeanWilliamL._Prosser_,whoseanalysisofinvasionofprivacyresultedintheclassificationof  8  thattortintofourseparatecausesofaction.SeeWilliamL._Prosser_,Privacy,48Calif.L.Rev.383 $  (1960);WilliamL._Prosser_,LawofTorts117(4thed.1971). Todatethelawofprivacycomprises   fourdistinctinterestsoftheplaintiff,whicharetiedtogetherbythecommonname,butotherwise   havealmostnothingincommonexceptthateachrepresentsaninterferencewiththerightofthe   plaintifftobeletalone._Prosser_,LawofTorts117,at804._Prosser_sfourcategoriesconsistof   theappropriationofonesnameorlikeness,intrusionupontheseclusionofanother,public p disclosureofprivatefacts,andplacinganotherinafalselightbeforethepublic.Id.,117. \   Section652AoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts(1977)incorporatedDean_Prosser_sfour 4 categoriesofinvasionofprivacy:  p (1)Onewhoinvadestherightofprivacyofanotherissubjecttoliabilityforthe H resultingharmtotheinterestsoftheother. 4 (2)Therightofprivacyisinvadedby:   0 ` (a)unreasonableintrusionupontheseclusionofanother,asstatedin652B;   or` `   ` (b)appropriationoftheothersnameorlikeness,asstatedin0 x 652C;  orx x   ` (c)unreasonablepublicitygiventotheothersprivatelife,asstatedin  652D;or  0 ` (d)publicitythatunreasonablyplacestheotherinafalselightbeforethe  public,asstatedin652E.t` `  &&  ThisCourtfirstencounteredtheissueofinvasionofprivacyin_Langford_Ԁv.Vanderbilt L  University,287S.W.2d32(Tenn.1956).Assumingthatinvasionofprivacyexistedasacauseof 8  actioninTennessee,thisCourtrecognizedtherighttoprivacyas therighttobeletalone;theright $ t ofapersontobefreefromunwarrantedpublicity._Langford_,287S.W.2dat38.W #  3      InMartinv.  ` Senators,Inc.,418S.W.2d660(Tenn.1967),werevisitedtheissueofinvasionofprivacy,looking  L  totheRestatement(First)ofTorts(1939)forinsightintothenatureofthetort:  8  Apersonwhounreasonablyandseriouslyinterfereswithanothersinterestinnot   havinghisaffairsknowntoothersorhislikenessexhibitedtothepublicisliableto   theother....Liabilityexistsonlyifthedefendantsconductwassuchthatheshould   haverealizedthatitwouldbeoffensivetopersonsofordinarysensibilities.Itisonly   wheretheintrusionhasgonebeyondthelimitsofdecencythatliabilityaccrues. p --Martin,418S.W.2dat663(citingtoRestatement(First)ofTorts867&_cmt_.d(1939)).Inmore H recentyears,thefederalcourtshaveappliedtheRestatement(Second)ofTortswhenanalyzingthe 4 righttoprivacyinTennessee.In_Scarbrough_Ԁv.BrownGroup,Inc.,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourt  p fortheWesternDistrictofTennesseeheldthat [_a]lthough_ԀnoTennesseestatecourthasrecognized  \ the[Restatement(Second)]distinctions,federalcourtsapplyingTennesseelawhaveusedthese H categoriesinanalyzinginvasionofprivacyclaims.935F.Supp.954,96364(W.D.Tenn.1996).\d #  4      ׀ 4   B.FalseLightandRecognitionoftheTort   3  SpecificallyatissueinthiscaseiswhetherTennesseerecognizestheseparatetortoffalse  lightinvasionofprivacy.Section652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts(1977)definesthetort  offalselight: l Onewhogivespublicitytoamatterconcerninganotherthatplacestheotherbefore D! thepublicinafalselightissubjecttoliabilitytotheotherforinvasionofhisprivacy, 0"  if #l! 0 ` (a)thefalselightinwhichtheotherwasplacedwouldbehighlyoffensiveto  areasonableperson,and` `  0 ` (b)theactorhadknowledgeoforactedinrecklessdisregardastothefalsity  ofthepublicizedmatterandthefalselightinwhichtheotherwouldbe t placed.`` `  h5Z5  Amajorityofjurisdictionsaddressingfalselightclaimshavechosentorecognizefalselight 8  asaseparateactionabletort.Mostofthesejurisdictionshaveadoptedeithertheanalysisofthetort $ t givenbyDean_Prosser_ԀorthedefinitionprovidedbytheRestatement(Second)ofTorts.SeeWhite  ` v.FraternalOrderofPolice,909F.2d512(D.C.Cir.1990);Phillipsv._Smalley_Ԁ_Maint_._Servs_.,Inc.,  L  435So.2d705(Ala.1983);_Godbehere_Ԁv.PhoenixNewspapers,Inc.,783P.2d781(Ariz.1989);  8  _Dodrill_Ԁv.ArkansasDemocratCo.,590S.W.2d840(Ark.1979);Fellowsv.NationalEnquirer,Inc., $  721P.2d97(Cal.1986)(inbank);_Cabaniss_Ԁv._Hipsley_,151S.E.2d496(Ga.Ct.App.1966);   Goodrichv.WaterburyRepublicanAmerican,Inc.,448A.2d1317(Conn.1982);AgencyforHealth   Care_Admn_.v.AssociatedIndus.ofFlorida,Inc.,678So.2d1239(Fla.1996)(recognizingfour   separatecategoriesconstitutinginvasionofprivacy);_Hoskins_Ԁv.Howard,971P.2d1135(Idaho   1998);_Lovgren_Ԁv.CitizensFirst_Natl_ԀBankofPrinceton,534N.E.2d987(Ill.1989);_Cullison_Ԁv. p Medley,570N.E.2d27(Ind.1991);Andersonv.LowRentHousing_Commn_Ԁof_Muscatine_,304 \ N.W.2d239(Iowa1981);Finlayv.Finlay,856P.2d183(_Kan_.Ct.App.1993)(statingthatfalselight H isasubdivisionofthebroadertortofinvasionofprivacy);McCallv.CourierJournalandLouisville 4 TimesCo.,623S.W.2d882(Ky.1981);_Jaubert_Ԁv.CrowleyPostSignal,Inc.,375So.2d1386(La.  p 1979);_Harnish_Ԁv.HeraldMailCo.,286A.2d146(Md.1972);_MacKerron_Ԁv._Madura_,445A.2d680  \ (Me.1982)(citing_Equifax_ԀServices,Inc.v.Cohen,420A.2d189,200(Me.1980));Prescottv.Bay H St.LouisNewspapers,Inc.,497So.2d77(Miss.1986);_Lence_Ԁv._Hagadone_ԀInv.Co.,853P.2d1230 4 (Mont.1993);Turnerv._Welliver_,411N.W.2d298(Neb.1987)(notingthatfalselightiscodified   inNeb.Rev.Stat.20204(1983));Romainev._Kallinger_,537A.2d284(N.J.1988);Moorev.Sun   _Publg_ԀCorp.,881P.2d735(N.M.Ct.App.1994);McCormackv.Oklahoma_Publg_ԀCo.,613P.2d  737(Okla.1980);Deanv.Guard_Publg_ԀCo.,Inc.,699P.2d1158(Or.Ct.App.1985);_Santillo_Ԁv.  _Reedel_,634A.2d264(Pa.Super.Ct.1993);MontgomeryWardv._Shope_,286N.W.2d806(S.D.  1979)(acknowledgingthatfalselightlieswithinthescopeofinvasionofprivacy);Coxv.Hatch,761 l P.2d556(Utah1988);_Eastwood_Ԁv.CascadeBroad.Co.,722P.2d1295(Wash.1986);Crumpv. X  BeckleyNewspapers,Inc.,320S.E.2d70(W.Va.1983). D!   Aminorityofjurisdictionshaverefusedtorecognizefalselightinvasionofprivacy.See #l! _Falwell_Ԁv.Penthouse_Intl_,Ltd.,521F.Supp.1204(W.D.Va.1981)(notingthatVirginiahas $X" statutoryrightofprivacysimilartothatofNewYork);ElmMedicalLaboratory,Inc.v._RKO_ $D # General,Inc.,532N.E.2d675(Mass.1989);Lakev.WalMartStores,Inc.,582N.W.2d231(Minn. %0!$ 1998);Sullivanv.PulitzerBroad.Co.,709S.W.2d475(Mo.1986)(enbanc)(refusingtorecognize &"% falselightonthesefacts);Howellv.NewYorkPostCo.,Inc.,612N.E.2d699(N.Y.1993)(holding '#& thatNewYorkhasstatutoryinvasionofprivacylawthatdoesnotaffordrecognitionofcommonlaw (#' falselight);_Renwick_Ԁv.NewsandObserver_Publg_ԀCo.,312S.E.2d405(N.C.1984);_Hougum_Ԁv. )$( Valley_Meml_ԀHomes,574N.W.2d812(N.D.1998);Yeagerv.LocalUnion20,Teamsters,453 |*%) N.E.2d666(Ohio1983);Brownv.Pearson,483S.E.2d477(S.C.Ct.App.1997);Cainv.Hearst h+&* Corp.,878S.W.2d577(Tex.1994);_Zinda_Ԁv._Lousiana_ԀPacificCorp.,440N.W.2d548(Wis.  1989)(recognizingthatstatutoryrighttoprivacyexcludesfalselight).Amongthesejurisdictions,  Virginia,NewYork,andWisconsinrefusedtorecognizethecommonlawtortoffalselightbecause  theirstatelegislaturesadoptedprivacystatutesthatdonotexpresslyincludethetort. t   Perhapsthemostsignificantcaseupholdingtheminorityviewis_Renwick_Ԁv.Newsand L  ObserverPublishingCo.,312S.E.2d405(N.C.1984).In_Renwick_,theSupremeCourtofNorth 8  Carolinaexpressedtwomainargumentsfornotrecognizingthetortoffalselightinvasionofprivacy $ t inNorthCarolina.First,theprotectionprovidedbyfalselighteitherduplicatesoroverlapsthe  ` interestsalreadyprotectedbythedefamationtortsoflibelandslander.312S.E.2dat412.Second,  L   totheextentitwouldallowrecoverybeyondthatpermittedinactionsforlibelorslander,  8  [recognitionoffalselight]wouldtendtoaddtothetensionalreadyexistingbetweentheFirst $  Amendmentandthelawoftortsincasesofthisnature.Id.Afteranalyzingthestandardsof   constitutionalprotectionprovidedbyNewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254,84_S.Ct_.710,   11_L.Ed_.2d686(1964)andTimes,Inc.v.Hill,385U.S.374,87_S.Ct_.534,17_L.Ed_.2d456(1967),   theNorthCarolinaSupremeCourtwasunwillingtoextendprotectiontoplaintiffsunderfalselight   partlybecauseofaconcernthatrecognitionofthetort wouldreducejudicialefficiencybyrequiring p ourcourtstoconsidertwoclaimsforthesamereliefwhich,ifnotidentical,wouldnotdiffer \ significantly.Id.at413.Further,thecourtassertedthat suchadditionalremediesaswemightbe H requiredtomakeavailabletoplaintiffsshouldwerecognizefalselightinvasionofprivacyclaims 4 arenotsufficienttojustifytherecognitioninthisjurisdictionofsuchinherentlyconstitutionally  p suspectclaimsforrelief.Id.(emphasisinoriginal).  \   Afterconsideringtherelevantauthorities,weagreewiththemajorityofjurisdictionsthat 4 falselightshouldberecognizedasadistinct,actionabletort.Whilethelawofdefamationandfalse   lightinvasionofprivacyconceivablyoverlapinsomeways,weconcludethatthedifferences   betweenthetwotortswarranttheirseparaterecognition.TheSupremeCourtofWestVirginianoted  thefollowingdifferencesinCrumpv.BeckleyNewspapers,Inc.:  Indefamationlawonlystatementsthatarefalseareactionable,truthis,almost l universally,adefense.Inprivacylaw,otherthaninfalselightcases,thefacts X  publishedaretrue;indeeditistheverytruthofthefactsthatcreatestheclaimed D! invasionofprivacy.l #  5      ׀Secondly,indefamationcasestheinterestsoughttobe 0"  protectedistheobjectiveoneofreputation,eithereconomic,political,orpersonal, #l! intheoutsideworld.Inprivacycasestheinterestaffectedisthesubjectiveoneof $X" injuryto[the]innerperson.Thirdly,wheretheissueistruthorfalsity,the $D # marketplaceofideasfurnishesaforuminwhichthebattlecanbefought.Inprivacy  cases,resorttothemarketplacesimplyaccentuatestheinjury.  [[320S.E.2d70,83(_W.Va_.1984)(quotingThomasEmerson,TheRightofPrivacyandFreedomof t thePress,14_Harv_.C.R.C.L.L.Rev.329,333(1979)). `     WithrespecttothejudicialeconomyconcernexpressedbytheNorthCarolinaSupreme 8  Court,wefindthatsuchconcernsareoutweighedinthisinstancebytheneedtomaintainthe $ t integrityoftherighttoprivacyinthisState.Dean_Prosser_sanalysisidentifiesthenatureofinvasion  ` ofprivacy,andwebelievefalselightcomplementstheremaininginvasionofprivacytorts.Certainly  L  situationsmayexistinwhichpersonshavehadattributedtothemcertainqualities,characteristics,  8  orbeliefsthat,whilenotinjurioustotheirreputation,placethosepersonsinanundesirablefalse $  light.m #  6      ׀However,insituationssuchasthese,victimsofinvasionofprivacywouldbewithout   recourseunderdefamationlaw.Falselightthereforeprovidesaviable,andwebelievenecessary,   actionforreliefapartfromdefamation.     TheAppellant,andlikewisetheminorityview,predictthatrecognitionofthetortwillresult p inunnecessarylitigation,eveninsituationswhere positiveorlaudatorycharacteristicsare \ attributedtoindividuals.Wedisagree.SuchneedlesslitigationisforeclosedbySection652E(a) H oftheRestatement(Second)ofTortswhichimposesliabilityforfalselightonlyifthepublicityis 4 highlyoffensivetoareasonableperson.CommentctoSection652Enotesthatthehypersensitive  p plaintiffcannotrecoverunderafalselightclaimwherethepublicizedmatterattributedtothe  \ plaintiffwas,evenifintentionallyfalsified,notaseriouslyoffensivemisstatement. H  XCompleteandperfectaccuracyinpublishedreportsconcerninganyindividualis   seldomattainablebyanyreasonableeffort,andmostminorerrors,suchasawrong   addressforhishome,oramistakeinthedatewhenheenteredhisemploymentor  similarunimportantdetailsofhiscareer,wouldnotintheabsenceofspecial  circumstancesgiveanyseriousoffensetoareasonableperson.  h XhRestatement(Second)ofTorts,652E_cmt_.c(1977).Thus,the highlyoffensivetoareasonable X  personprongofSection652Edetersneedlesslitigation.fd #  7       D! Ї  CommentbtoSection652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTortsaddressestheconcernthat  onepublicationmayresultinmultiplerecoveries.If,inadditiontofalselight,aplaintiffalsoasserts  analternativetheoryofrecoveryunderlibel, theplaintiffcanproceeduponeithertheory,orboth,  althoughhecanhavebutonerecoveryforasingleinstanceofpublicity.Id.(emphasisadded).o( #  8       t     WemustalsodisagreewiththeNorthCarolinaSupremeCourtthatrecognitionoffalselight L  woulddestabilizecurrentFirstAmendmentprotectionsofspeech.Inourview,the actualmalice 8  standardadequatelyprotectsFirstAmendmentrightswhentheplaintiffisapublicofficial,apublic $ t figure,orthepublicityisamatterofpublicinterest.Thisstandardwasfirstadoptedinadefamation  ` case,NewYorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,376U.S.254,84_S.Ct_.710,11_L.Ed_.2d686(1964),inwhich  L  theCourtheldthatpublicofficialsmaynotrecoverdamagesfordefamatorystatementsrelatingto  8  theirofficialdutiesunlessthestatementwasmadewithactualmalice!knowledgeofthefalsityof $  thestatementorrecklessdisregardforthetruthofthestatement.InTime,Inc.v.Hill,385U.S.374,   87_S.Ct_Ԁ534,17_L.Ed_.2d456(1967),theCourtextendedtheactualmalicestandardtoalleged   defamatorystatementsaboutmattersofpublicinterest.c<  #  9      ׀In_Gertz_Ԁv.RobertWelch,Inc.,418U.S.   323,94_S.Ct_.2997,41_L.Ed_.2d789(1974),theCourtheldthatnegligenceisasufficient   constitutionalstandardfordefamationclaimsassertedbyaprivateindividualaboutmattersof p privateconcern,buttheCourthasnotyetdecidedwhichstandardappliestofalselightclaims.See \ _Cantrell_Ԁv.ForestCityPublishingCo.,419U.S.245,95_S.Ct_.465,42_L.Ed_.2d419(1974). H   InlightoftheuncertainpositionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwithrespecttothe  p constitutionalstandardforfalselightclaimsbroughtbyprivateindividualsaboutmattersofprivate  \ interest,manycourtsandSection652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTortsadoptactualmaliceas H thestandardforallfalselightclaims.SeeGoodrichv.WaterburyRepublicanAmerican,Inc.,448 4 A.2d1317,1330(Conn.1982);_Lovgren_Ԁv.CitizensFirst_Natl_ԀBankofPrinceton,534N.E.2d987,   991(Ill.1989);McCallv.CourierJournaland_Louiville_ԀTimesCo.,623S.W.2d882,888(Ky.   1981)( UntiltheSupremeCourthasspoken,wemustcomplywiththerulinginHill....Inthe  eventthe_Gertz_ruleisapplied,webelievethedesirablestandardoffaultisthatofsimplenegligence  whichwehaveadoptedinthisopinionforlibelcases.);Deanv.Guard_Publg_ԀCo.,Inc.,699P.2d  1158,1161(Or.Ct.App.1985).Weholdthatactualmaliceistheappropriatestandardforfalselight l claimswhentheplaintiffisapublicofficialorpublicfigure,orwhentheclaimisassertedbya  privateindividualaboutamatterofpublicconcern.Wedonot,however,adopttheactualmalice  standardforfalselightclaimsbroughtbyprivateplaintiffsaboutmattersofprivateconcern.In  MemphisPublishingCo.v._Nichols_,569S.W.2d412(Tenn.1978),thisCourtadoptednegligence t asthestandardfordefamationclaimsassertedbyprivateindividualsaboutmattersofprivate ` concern.Ourdecisiontoadoptasimplenegligencestandardinprivateplaintiff/privatematterfalse L  lightclaimsistheresultofourconclusionthatprivateplaintiffsinfalselightclaimsdeservethe 8  sameheightenedprotectionthatprivateplaintiffsreceiveindefamationcases.Therefore,whenfalse $ t lightinvasionofprivacyclaimsareassertedbyaprivateplaintiffregardingamatterofprivate  ` concern,theplaintiffneedonlyprovethatthedefendantpublisherwasnegligentinplacingthe  L  plaintiffinafalselight.Forallotherfalselightclaims,webelievethattheactualmalicestandard  8  achievestheappropriatebalancebetweenFirstAmendmentguaranteesandprivacyinterests. $  Ѐ  Withrespecttotheparametersofthetortoffalselight,weconcludethatSections652FIof   theRestatement(Second)ofTortsadequatelyaddressitslimits.Sections652Fand652Gnotethat   absoluteandconditionalprivilegesapplytotheinvasionofprivacytorts,andweherebyaffirmthat   suchprivilegespreviouslyrecognizedinTennesseeapplytofalselightclaims.Damagesare p addressedinSection652HoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts(1977),whichprovides: \ SOnewhohasestablishedacauseofactionforinvasionofhisprivacyisentitledto 4 recoverdamagesfor  p m4(a)theharmtohisinterestinprivacyresultingfromtheinvasion;  \ (b)hismentaldistressprovedtohavebeensufferedifitisofakindthat H normallyresultsfromsuchaninvasion;and 4 (c)specialdamageofwhichtheinvasionisalegalcause.   4S_ҀConsistentwithdefamation,weemphasizethatplaintiffsseekingtorecoveronfalselightclaims  mustspecificallypleadandprovedamagesallegedlysufferedfromtheinvasionoftheirprivacy.See  MemphisPublishing,569S.W.2dat419.Aswithdefamation,theremustbeproofofactual  damages.SeeMyersv.PickeringFirm,Inc.,959S.W.2d152(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Theplaintiff l neednotprovespecialdamagesoroutofpocketlossesnecessarily,asevidenceofinjurytostanding X  inthecommunity,humiliation,oremotionaldistressissufficient.959S.W.2dat164. D!   Inaddition,forpurposesofclarification,thisCourtadoptsSection652IoftheRestatement #l! (Second)ofTorts(1977)whichrecognizesthattherighttoprivacyisapersonalright.Assuch,the $X" rightcannotattachtocorporationsorotherbusinessentities,maynotbeassignedtoanother,normay $D # itbeassertedbyamemberoftheindividualsfamily,evenifbroughtafterthedeathofthe %0!$ individual.Restatement(Second)ofTorts652I_cmt_.ac(1977).Therefore,onlythosepersons &"% whohavebeenplacedinafalselightmayrecoverforinvasionoftheirprivacy. '#& ̀  Finally,werecognizethatapplicationofdifferentstatutesoflimitationforfalselightand )$( defamationcasescouldunderminetheeffectivenessoflimitationsondefamationclaims.Therefore, |*%) weholdthatfalselightclaimsaresubjecttothestatutesoflimitationthatapplytolibelandslander, h+&* asstatedinTenn.CodeAnn.283103and283104(a)(1),dependingontheformofthe  publicity,whetherinspokenorfixedform.  &4   III.Conclusion  t     Inresponsetothecertifiedquestion,weconcludethatthecourtsofTennesseerecognizethe L  tortoffalselightinvasionofprivacy,andthatSection652EoftheRestatement(Second)ofTorts 8  (1977),asmodifiedbythediscussionabove,isanaccuratestatementofthetort.Theparametersof $ t falselightinTennesseeareadequatelyexplainedbytheCommentstoSections652Aand652EI,  ` aswellasthepleadingofdamagesrequirementprovidedinMemphisPublishingCo.v._Nichols_,569  L  S.W.2d412(Tenn.1978).  8    Havingansweredthecertifiedquestion,theClerkisdirectedtotransmitacopyofthis   opinioninaccordancewithTennesseeSupremeCourtRule23(8).CostsinthisCourtaretaxedto   thepetitioner,MediaGeneralConvergence,Inc.        `     h     _____________________________  H    `     h     FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,JUSTICE#[uXXw #