Welling v. Weinfeld
113 Ohio St. 3d 464, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Ohio recognizes the tort of false-light invasion of privacy. A person is subject to liability if they give publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and the actor knew of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter.
Facts:
- Lauri Weinfeld and Robert and Katherine Welling were neighbors engaged in ongoing disputes.
- Weinfeld operated a party center next to her home, which was adjacent to the Wellings' property.
- In the spring of 2000, a rock was thrown through a window at Weinfeld's party center.
- Weinfeld suspected the Wellings' son was the culprit but admitted she had no proof.
- Weinfeld created and distributed handbills offering a $500 reward for information leading to a conviction for the window-breaking incident.
- Weinfeld distributed these handbills at the bottling plant where Robert Welling and his son worked and at the school the Welling children attended.
Procedural Posture:
- Lauri Weinfeld sued the Wellings in an Ohio trial court.
- The Wellings filed a counterclaim against Weinfeld for, among other things, invasion of privacy.
- A jury returned a verdict for the Wellings on their invasion of privacy counterclaim, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- Weinfeld filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur.
- The trial court denied the JNOV but ordered a new trial on the invasion of privacy claim after the Wellings rejected a remittitur of the punitive damages award.
- Both parties appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals ruled that the false-light theory of invasion of privacy was not an established cause of action in Ohio and thus removed that issue from consideration for the new trial.
- The Wellings, as appellants, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which accepted the discretionary appeal to decide whether to recognize the tort.
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 Ohio law recognize the tort of false-light invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfeifer, J.
Yes, Ohio law recognizes the tort of false-light invasion of privacy. The court explicitly adopts the standard set forth in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 652E. The court reasoned that this tort protects a distinct interest—an individual's peace of mind and right not to be made to appear as someone they are not—which is not fully covered by defamation, as defamation protects one's reputation. The court acknowledged that some jurisdictions reject the tort due to its overlap with defamation and concerns about chilling free speech, but concluded that the Restatement's strict requirements provide adequate protection. These requirements include publicity, a highly offensive falsehood, and a high fault standard—that the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. By adopting this 'actual malice'-like standard for all plaintiffs (both public and private), the court provides robust First Amendment protection, ensuring that only egregious cases are actionable and that negligent misstatements are not punished.
Analysis:
This decision officially incorporates the tort of false-light invasion of privacy into Ohio's common law, resolving a long-standing question in the state's jurisprudence and aligning it with the majority of other jurisdictions. By adopting the high 'knowledge or reckless disregard' fault standard from the Restatement for all cases, the court sets a difficult-to-meet evidentiary burden for plaintiffs. This high standard serves to protect free speech and prevent a flood of litigation over minor or negligent falsehoods, while still providing a remedy for individuals subjected to serious, highly offensive, and knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods that do not necessarily rise to the level of defamation.
