Todd Andreacchio v. Joseph Hamilton

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2021-01021-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; July 13, 2022; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Todd and Rae Andreacchio (Plaintiffs) appealing a summary judgment granted to Joseph Hamilton (Defendant) regarding claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress following the death of their son, Christian Andreacchio. Christian's death was ruled a suicide by the Meridian Police Department, but the Plaintiffs assert it was a murder and criticize the investigation's competence. They allege that Defendant, who created a Facebook page supporting the police's conclusion and shared Christian's autopsy photographs and text messages, exceeded protected speech rights by doing so, causing them emotional distress. The photographs and text messages were public records released by the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. The trial court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the Plaintiffs could not prevail because the shared information was truthful, public, and significant. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs' claims lacked merit based on the undisputed material facts. The case was remanded with the judgment affirmed.

Plaintiffs have initiated a lawsuit against unidentified defendants, referred to as John Does 1-100, who are alleged to be responsible for damages related to the dissemination of private materials, specifically decedent's autopsy photos and text messages with Plaintiff Rae Andreacchio. These materials were obtained by the Plaintiffs from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office through Public Records Requests, and are classified as public records. The Plaintiffs do not contest the authenticity of these materials, asserting that they have not been doctored or misrepresented.

The Plaintiffs argue that while the materials may be public records, they are not readily accessible to the public and contend that the Defendant is responsible for the content shared on his Facebook page. They claim that the autopsy photos were disseminated via a Dropbox link from the “Unjustifiable” Facebook page, which they characterize as “outrageous” conduct.

In August 2021, the Trial Court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the publication of truthful information regarding a matter of public concern is protected. The court noted that the Plaintiffs acknowledged the materials as public records and confirmed their receipt from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Consequently, the court found that the text messages and autopsy photos are indeed public records, which influenced its ruling.

Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead harassment or threats, and no reasonable basis exists for inferring such conduct by the Defendant. While Plaintiffs claim the Defendant's actions qualify as “outrageous,” the Defendant asserts an absolute defense to civil liability, grounded in the truthful nature of the published materials concerning a public interest, which are considered public records. Tennessee law maintains that the publication of truthful information does not constitute outrageous conduct. The Court finds no genuine issue of material fact regarding outrageousness.

Regarding allegations of actual malice, the Court deems this irrelevant to the asserted causes of action, as malice is a necessary element only in defamation cases involving public figures, which the Plaintiffs have not claimed. The Court clarifies that actual malice does not pertain to ill intent but rather to knowledge of falsehood in defamatory statements. Consequently, there is no material issue as to actual malice.

The Court concludes that because the conduct involves the publication of truthful information about a public significance, imposing civil liability would infringe on the Defendant's free speech rights under the First Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion is granted regarding Counts One and Two, concerning Intentional/Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Additionally, as the published materials are public records, Plaintiffs cannot assert any right to privacy regarding them, resulting in the granting of the Defendant's Motion for Count Three, which alleges Invasion of Privacy by Publication of Private Facts. Lastly, since the other claims have been resolved in favor of the Defendant, the derivative claims for negligent entrustment and respondeat superior (Count Four) are also dismissed. Plaintiffs have appealed the Court's decision.

Plaintiffs appeal the Trial Court's ruling regarding the applicability of the First Amendment, the Tennessee Constitution, and the Public Records Doctrine as defenses for the Defendant against claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress related to the distribution of Christian Andreacchio’s autopsy photographs. The Tennessee Supreme Court establishes that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as outlined in Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.04. The appellate review of summary judgment motions is conducted de novo, without a presumption of correctness, focusing on whether Rule 56 requirements are met. 

The moving party may fulfill its burden by either negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or showing that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient. The moving party must support its motion with a concise statement of undisputed material facts, each cited to the record. The nonmoving party must respond with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying solely on allegations or denials in their pleadings. They must provide evidence that could lead a rational trier of fact to rule in their favor. If a summary judgment motion is filed before sufficient discovery, the nonmoving party can request a continuance for additional discovery; however, if adequate time has been provided, summary judgment may be granted if the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient. The assessment focuses on the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage, not on hypothetical future evidence.

The appeal centers on claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. For intentional infliction, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was (1) intentional or reckless, (2) outrageous by societal standards, and (3) caused serious mental injury. For negligent infliction, the elements align with general negligence, requiring duty, breach, injury, causation in fact, and proximate causation. Additionally, the appeal raises issues of free speech protected under the First Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, which guarantees the right to free communication and the examination of government proceedings. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant's distribution of autopsy photographs of Christian Andreacchio is not protected speech, citing the Post-Mortem Examination Act, particularly Tenn. Code Ann. 38-7-119, which restricts the unauthorized dissemination of autopsy-related images without consent from next of kin. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs waived their argument regarding the Act by not raising it in lower court proceedings, as issues not properly presented at trial typically cannot be argued on appeal. The plaintiffs clarify that they do not claim a direct violation of the Act but suggest that a ruling for the defendant would jeopardize the Act's validity. However, the record indicates the plaintiffs did not raise the Act in their arguments before the Trial Court.

Issues not properly raised in trial court proceedings cannot be argued for the first time on appeal, leading to the decision to disregard the Plaintiffs’ argument based on the Post-Mortem Examination Act, as it was introduced only on appeal. The Plaintiffs reference Reid v. Pierce County, where the Washington Supreme Court recognized a protectable privacy interest in autopsy records for immediate relatives, allowing for an invasion of privacy claim based on egregious conduct by government employees. In contrast, the Defendant argues Reid is not applicable law in Tennessee and points out that the allegations pertain to a private citizen rather than government workers. The Defendant further cites Fann v. City of Fairview, which dismissed an invasion of privacy claim related to a newspaper's lawful publication of confidential information about a political candidate, emphasizing that the information was a matter of public significance. Regarding the Purifoy case, the Defendant notes the absence of stalking allegations, while referencing Harris v. Horton, where showing post-mortem photographs was deemed not to constitute an invasion of privacy, provided the subject matter was of legitimate public concern. The court acknowledges the potential for a protectable privacy interest in post-mortem imagery but seeks to evaluate the invasion of privacy claim's elements to determine the appropriateness of the trial court's summary judgment.

Publicity concerning private matters may not be actionable if it pertains to a legitimate public concern, as established in Section 652D of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In this case, the trial court determined that the accident resulting in Jeremy's death was a matter of legitimate public concern, supported by local media coverage. Consequently, Jeremy was deemed an involuntary public figure, and the publicity surrounding the accident-scene photographs, even if private and potentially offensive, did not constitute an invasion of privacy. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment favoring the defendants.

Additionally, the case referenced the public interest in the investigation of Christian Andreacchio's death. Both parties expressed their views publicly, a right protected under the Tennessee Constitution. The defendant’s distribution of autopsy photographs was deemed lawful, as they were public records obtained legitimately and shared without alteration. The court emphasized that sharing truthful information regarding matters of public significance, regardless of sensitivity, is protected speech, and thus, the defendant could not be held liable for such actions. The plaintiffs' claims were not supported, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment and remanding for cost collection, with the costs of appeal assessed against the plaintiffs.