Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp
36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2540, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 849, 997 So. 2d 1098 (2008)
Rule of Law:
Florida does not recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy because it largely duplicates existing torts like defamation and lacks sufficient First Amendment protections. However, Florida recognizes defamation by implication, and a statement is defamatory if it prejudices the plaintiff in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.
Facts:
- Edith Rapp was married to Marty Rapp until his death in 2003.
- Bruce Rapp, Marty's son and Edith Rapp's stepson, was employed by Jews for Jesus, Inc.
- Bruce Rapp reported an account in the Jews for Jesus newsletter about visiting his father and stepmother.
- The newsletter account stated that Edith Rapp (Edie), who is Jewish, asked Bruce questions about Jesus, cried, and "repeated the sinner's prayer" with him.
- The account further stated, "Praise G-d! Pray for Edie's faith to grow and be strengthened. And please pray for my father Marty's salvation," implying Edith Rapp had converted to Christianity.
- The newsletter was published on the internet and seen by one of Edith Rapp's relatives.
- Edith Rapp claimed that Jews for Jesus falsely stated without her permission that she had “joined Jews for Jesus, and/or [become] a believer in the tenets, the actions, and the philosophy of Jews for Jesus.”
Procedural Posture:
- Edith Rapp filed a complaint in trial court (Florida Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court) against Jews for Jesus, Inc., alleging false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted Jews for Jesus's motion to dismiss the initial complaint without prejudice and struck several paragraphs.
- Rapp filed an amended complaint, adding a count for negligent training and supervision.
- The trial court granted Jews for Jesus's motion to dismiss the counts for false light invasion of privacy and defamation with prejudice, and the remaining counts without prejudice.
- Rapp filed a second amended complaint (alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent training and supervision, and negligent infliction of emotional distress).
- The trial court dismissed this final complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
- Rapp appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Rapp's defamation claim, concluding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under its interpretation of the common mind standard.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of Rapp's false light claim, noting that prior precedent seemed to have tacitly recognized the cause of action, but acknowledged uncertainty in the law.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the question of whether Florida recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and if so, are the elements of the tort set forth in section 652E of Restatement (Second) of Torts?
Opinions:
Majority - Pariente
No, Florida does not recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and thus the elements of section 652E of Restatement (Second) of Torts are not adopted. The Court concluded that false light is largely duplicative of existing torts, especially defamation by implication, and without the stringent First Amendment protections afforded to defamation, it poses an unacceptable risk of chilling free speech. The "highly offensive to a reasonable person" standard for false light is too amorphous compared to defamation's more established "damage to reputation" standard. The Court found that most injuries capable of being remedied by false light could also be remedied by defamation, particularly through the recognition of defamation by implication, where literally true statements create a false impression. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Florida recognizes a cause of action for defamation by implication, which applies when a defendant juxtaposes facts or omits facts to create a defamatory implication. The Court also held that a communication can be considered defamatory if it "prejudices" the plaintiff in the eyes of a "substantial and respectable minority of the community," explicitly adopting comment e of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559. This standard acknowledges that defamation does not require universal hatred but rather harm in the estimation of an important and respectable part of the community.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Wells
Justice Wells concurred with the majority's decision to reject the false light cause of action. However, he dissented from the decision to adopt the "substantial and respectable minority" standard for defamation, as set forth in section 559, comment e of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. He argued that Florida's defamation law has been stable for a long time, and no need has been demonstrated to change this settled law. He believed the "substantial and respectable minority" standard is too vague, making it difficult to determine what constitutes a "substantial" number or a "respectable" minority. He contended that this vague standard would be too burdensome on the essential and vital First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Florida's tort landscape by rejecting the tort of false light invasion of privacy, consolidating privacy and reputational harm claims under defamation law. It strengthens the concept of defamation by implication, ensuring that individuals can seek redress for misleading but technically true statements that harm their reputation. The adoption of the "substantial and respectable minority" standard broadens the scope of what constitutes defamatory harm, impacting how future defamation claims are evaluated, especially in diverse communities where a statement might not offend a majority but still cause significant reputational damage within a specific group.
