"To make this determination, courts 'must look to the words themselves and are not bound by the plaintiff's interpretation of them.'" Id. (citing Stones River Motors, Inc., v. Mid-South Pub. Co., 651 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983)); see Revis v. McClean, 31 S.W.3d 250, 253 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (whether communication is defamatory should be determined based on context in which it is made and as person of ordinary intelligence would understand them in light of surrounding circumstances); see also Gunter v. Emerton, 2002 WL 1015808, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 2002) (Court of Appeals upheld trial court's determination in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment that statement did not produce false impression about plaintiff); Patterson v. Grant-Herms, 2013 WL 5568427 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2013) (Cottrell, J., dissenting) (statement at issue in false light claim was not highly offensive to reasonable person as matter of law). Courts may determine as a matter of law whether a statement is defamatory or place another in a false light because in each instance the standard is that of the "reasonable person."
1978). See also Flatt v. Tenn. Secondary Schs. Athletic Ass'n, 2003 WL 61251, at *3; Gunter v. Emerton, No. M2001-00364-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 1015808, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. May 21, 2002) (No Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed). Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 652E (b), at 394; see also Sean M. Scott, The Hidden First Amendment Values of Privacy, 71 Wash. L.Rev. 683, 728 n. 282 (1996).