Day on Torts
Where the defendant posted false information about a previous plea agreement involving the plaintiff on Facebook, a $75,000 verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed.
In Austin v. Plese, No. E2024-00586-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2025), the plaintiff and the defendant were neighbors. During a disagreement, the defendant posted on Facebook about the plaintiff, including a statement that the plaintiff had been arrested in Texas for deadly conduct with a gun, and that the plaintiff had pleaded guilty to those charges. In reality, the plaintiff had plead guilty many years ago to a Texas statute entitled deadly conduct to reach a better deal in a DUI case.
The plaintiff filed this suit for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The trial court found the statement about deadly conduct with a gun actionable, and it entered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $95,100. On appeal, the $20,000 in reputational damages was vacated, but the judgment for the plaintiff was otherwise affirmed.
On appeal, the Court first examined whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant liable for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The defendant argued that the statement about the conviction was true and that the portion referring to a gun was due to a “layperson’s misunderstanding of the Texas statute.” The defendant argued that she “did not act with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter” and that she “made a good faith effort to ascertain the truth.” The Court found these arguments unavailing. The Court pointed out that the defendant’s statements “omitted crucial context about [the plaintiff’s] conviction” and “distorted the truth,” as they implied that the plaintiff had been involved in violent or aggressive behavior. The Court also found that the defendant’s assertion that she misunderstood the law did not protect her from liability. The Court wrote that the statements “badly warped the reality of [the plaintiff’s] Texas arrest,” and thus affirmed liability for false light.
Regarding defamation, the Court explained that the false assertion that the plaintiff’s past conviction involved a gun held the plaintiff “up to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.” The Court wrote that the false statements were made “on a slapdash and flimsy basis,” and that the defendant “acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.” The Court therefore affirmed the defamation ruling.
Next, the Court considered whether the trial court erred by awarding punitive damages without holding a second, separate proceeding or setting out sufficient reasoning. The Court acknowledged that the bifurcation of proceedings where punitive damages are requested is mandatory in Tennessee, even when bifurcation is not requested. The Court ruled, however, that the defendant could not show how this error prejudiced her, or how the outcome would have been more favorable to the defendant had the proceedings been bifurcated. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the failure to bifurcate was harmless error here.
The defendant also complained about the lack of specific findings by the trial court related to punitive damages, but the Court wrote that it was “clear from the Trial Court’s order what it found relevant based on the evidence and that related to the evidence showing the maliciousness of Defendant’s act.” The Court found that the trial court’s order was sufficient and showed that the trial court “adequately considered the factors for an award of punitive damages…”
The defendant further argued that her conduct did not rise to the level of recklessness so as to justify punitive damages, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court pointed to the defendant’s refusal to retract the statement and continuance of the statements after seeing how upset the plaintiff was.
Third, the Court considered the defendant’s assertion that there was no causal connection between the plaintiff’s damages and the defendant’s actions. The Court rejected this assertion, noting that the trial court found the plaintiff credible, and that the plaintiff introduced evidence of personal humiliation, emotional distress, and medical bills incurred. The trial court, however, also awarded the plaintiff $20,000 for reputational damages. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no evidence to support an award for reputational damages, so it vacated this portion of the verdict.
Finally, the Court of Appeals analyzed whether the plaintiff’s husband was entitled to loss of consortium damages when that claim was not plead in the complaint. The Court agreed with the trial court that there was ample evidence to support such a claim, that the defendant had sufficient notice of the claim, and that the “pleadings should be amended to conform to the evidence and include the loss of consortium claim.”
Other than the vacated award for reputational damage, the verdict for the plaintiff was affirmed. Defamation and false light cases can be difficult to win, so this opinion could be an important read for litigants dealing with these claims.
This opinion was released two months after oral arguments in this case.