Intrusion Upon Seclusion Survives Death Under Tennessee Code §20-5-102

Introduction

In Annie J. Jones, by and through her conservatorship Joyce Sons a/k/a Calisa Joyce Sons v. Life Care Centers of America d/b/a Life Care Center of Tullahoma, the Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed a question of statutory abatement under Tennessee’s survival statute, Tenn. Code Ann. §20-5-102. The case arose after a certified nursing aide (CNA) at a skilled nursing facility took a personal video call in a shower room, capturing an elderly, cognitively impaired resident nude and visible to the caller. The resident’s conservator sued for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. The trial court granted summary judgment to the facility for lack of injury; the Court of Appeals reversed, also holding the claim did not abate on the resident’s death. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Tennessee’s survival statute preserves or extinguishes an intrusion upon seclusion claim when the wronged individual dies.

Summary of the Judgment

  • Holding: A cause of action for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion is a “civil action…founded on wrongs” and does not abate upon the death of the person whose privacy was invaded (Tenn. Code Ann. §20-5-102). The statutory exception for “wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” applies only to defamation‐type claims, not privacy torts.
  • Procedural Posture: The trial court granted the facility’s summary judgment for lack of cognizable injury; the Court of Appeals reversed on liability and abatement grounds and ordered leave to amend. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ abatement ruling, declining to address other issues not properly preserved.
  • Rule of Law Established: Intrusion upon seclusion survives the death of the victim under Tennessee Code Annotated §20-5-102, absent a statutory exception limited to character‐ defamation claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. (2001): Adopted the four privacy torts of Prosser’s framework and §652A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, and recognized Section 652I’s rule that privacy rights are personal and lapse on death absent a particular statute. West applied §652I only to false‐light claims, not intrusion upon seclusion.

• Givens v. Mullikin (2002): Confirmed intrusion upon seclusion under Tennessee law, quoting Restatement §652B: liability arises when an intentional intrusion into a private place or seclusion “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

• Benton v. Knoxville News‐Sentinel Co. (1939) and Akers v. Akers (1885): Held that libel and slander (defamation) abate on the plaintiff’s death under the “character” exception in earlier survival statutes.

Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Text Controls. Section 20-5-102 provides: “No civil action…founded on wrongs or contracts…shall abate by the death of either party…except actions for wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff.” Intrusion upon seclusion plainly is a “wrong” (a violation of the victim’s legal right to privacy) and thus survives.

2. Definition of the Exception. The “character” exception applies only to causes of action where the defendant’s wrong involves injury to the plaintiff’s reputation or moral standing. Tennessee courts have confined this exception to defamation‐type torts in which “bad character” is a defense or central element.

3. Intrusion Upon Seclusion Distinct. This tort focuses on the defendant’s unauthorized entry into a private space or seclusion thrown around one’s person or affairs—and on whether such intrusion would be highly offensive—without regard to the plaintiff’s character. No proof of damage to reputation or moral character is required.

4. Overriding the Common Law. Under the common law, claims abated on death. The legislature enacted survival statutes in the 1830s (Act of Feb. 17, 1836) and 1858, modifying the common law and narrowing the exception. The modern statute must be given its ordinary meaning and broad effect.

Impact

• Elder‐care and Vulnerable Populations: Facilities and caregivers must recognize that privacy‐intrusion claims survive—even if the victim never knew of the breach—creating potential liability for post‐mortem claims by estates.

• Expansion of Privacy Remedies: Confirms that intrusion upon seclusion is an injury in itself, not dependent on emotional distress proof, so long as the statutory procedure for survival is followed.

• Legislative Clarity: Legislators may revisit §20-5-102 if they wish to carve out more categories; courts will adhere to the narrow “character” exception as limited to defamation.

• Estate Litigation: Estate representatives can pursue privacy claims on behalf of decedents where “wrongs” to privacy occurred before death, potentially increasing wrongful death or estate‐driven privacy litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Abatement: When a lawsuit ends because a party dies before the case concludes.
  • Survival Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. §20-5-102): A law providing that most civil claims do not “die” with the person; they pass to the estate.
  • “Wrongs Affecting the Character of the Plaintiff”: A limited exception covering defamation (libel/slander) claims—where the plaintiff’s reputation is the very injury.
  • Intrusion Upon Seclusion: A privacy tort in which one intentionally invades your private space or affairs in an offensive manner, even if no one else ever sees what was taken.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has now made clear that invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion survives the death of the victim under Tenn. Code Ann. §20-5-102, unless the action is one for “wrongs affecting the character of the plaintiff” (i.e., defamation). This decision affirms the modern legislative design to preserve personal‐rights torts and reinforces protections for privacy, especially for the most vulnerable. Nursing homes, caregivers, and all who handle private information must heed this ruling: a privacy breach can give rise to a claim long after the person affected has passed away.