## Facts

- Robert and Katherine Welling and Lauri Weinfeld were neighboring property owners in Perry Township, Stark County, Ohio.
- Weinfeld operated a party/banquet center adjacent to her home; the Wellings lived next door.
- In spring 2000, someone threw a rock through a plate-glass window at Weinfeld’s party center.
- Weinfeld suspected the Wellings’ son but admitted she had no proof identifying the person responsible.
- Weinfeld printed and distributed reward handbills seeking information leading to a conviction for the rock-throwing.
- She distributed handbills not only in the neighborhood but also at the Pepsi bottling plant where Robert Welling and his son worked and at the school attended by the Welling children.
- The Wellings alleged the handbills publicized an implication of culpability and placed them in a false light.
- In related litigation, a jury found for the Wellings on a false-light invasion-of-privacy theory, but the jury instructions did not reflect Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio recognizes false-light invasion of privacy as a cognizable tort.
2. If recognized, what elements govern false-light liability, including the required level of fault.
3. Whether the verdict could stand where the jury was not instructed under the governing false-light standard.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court recognized false-light invasion of privacy as a claim under Ohio law.
- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E as the controlling rule.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the adopted standard, including a new trial because the jury had not been instructed under § 652E.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is liable for false-light invasion of privacy when the defendant gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light, if:
  - the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
  - the defendant knew of the falsity or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity and the false light created.
- “Publicity” requires more than a limited private communication; the matter must be publicized to the public at large or to so many persons that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge.
- False light protects mental and emotional interests from being publicly misrepresented; it may overlap with defamation but is not limited to reputational harm.
- First Amendment concerns justify requiring, at minimum, knowledge or reckless disregard as to falsity and false light.

## Conclusion

Ohio formally recognized the false-light theory of invasion of privacy and adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E; because the jury was not instructed under that standard, the case was remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent with the newly adopted elements.


Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007)