1

I found this interesting corner of law called IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress

To a layman's eye, infidelity seems to fit neatly into 4 bullet points of stated definition at this link, if intent can be shown:

  • It's an act
  • It is generally considered outrageous
  • It's well known that infidelity victims are likely to suffer mental health effects (I even saw mentions it's equivalent to PTSD)
  • Conduct clearly causes the distress.

If this is the case, can IIED get applied to a spousal infidelity, and if not, why wouldn't it? I'm looking ideally for a case where it was requested by the accuser, and the court either allowed it thus setting a precedent, or gave an explanation for rejecting it.

Since "well in this case, I don't see enough evidence that causing emotional distress was a purpose of defendant, merely an unfortunate consequence" is an obvious rebuttal, I'm hopefully looking for a more interesting case, such as where there is evidence proving that accused had anticipated emotional distress and it was a desired goal.

Jurisdiction is USA. And just to clarify, this is specifically regarding "intentional", not "negligent" ED.

user17760
  • 605
  • 4
  • 13

1 Answers1

5

Does IIED (emotional distress) apply to infidelity and if no, why not?

Generally speaking, infidelity falls short of liability for IIED.

Clark v. Clark, 867 S.E.2d 704 (2021) appears to be one recent exception, but that is because there the defendants' conduct allegedly entailed more than mere infidelity, such as "sen[ding] at least one email to Plaintiff in which Defendant Barrett told Plaintiff she "was a bad mother, that [she was] uneducated... [she] was a bad wife," and that Plaintiff came "from an unsuccessful family"" (quotation marks in original), conduct that the court seemed to associate with elements of Watson v. Dixon (i.e., frightening the plaintiff, humiliation, etc.), cited in the preceding paragraph of the Clark decision.

The difficulty for prevailing on a claim of IIED generally lies in proving that "the defendant's conduct was [...] so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society", Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 207 (2012). The notion that infidelity "is not tolerated by civilized society" is hard to establish. For instance, many people do not very often distance themselves from a co-worker, friend, or acquaintance merely on grounds of that person being known to cheat on that person's spouse or partner. Also the fact that adultery is hardly ever prosecuted despite being prohibited in a jurisdiction's penal code reflects the extent of societal and governmental tolerance to infidelity.

Iñaki Viggers
  • 45,677
  • 4
  • 72
  • 96