family-law emotional-distress
Does IIED (emotional distress) apply to infidelity and if no, why not?
<p>I found this interesting corner of law called IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress</a></p>
<p>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:</p>
<ul>
<li>It's an act</li>
<li>It is generally considered outrageous</li>
<li>It's well known that infidelity victims are likely to suffer mental health effects (I even saw mentions it's equivalent to PTSD)</li>
<li>Conduct clearly causes the distress.</li>
</ul>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Since &quot;well in this case, I don't see enough evidence that causing emotional distress was a <em>purpose</em> of defendant, merely an unfortunate consequence&quot; 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.</p>
<p>Jurisdiction is USA. And just to clarify, this is specifically regarding &quot;<em>intentional</em>&quot;, not &quot;negligent&quot; ED.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Does IIED (emotional distress) apply to infidelity and if no, why not?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Generally speaking, infidelity falls short of liability for IIED.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inncco20211207353" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Clark v. Clark</em>, 867 S.E.2d 704 (2021)</a> appears to be one recent exception, but that is because there the defendants' conduct allegedly entailed more than mere infidelity, such as &quot;<em>sen[ding] at least one email to Plaintiff in which Defendant Barrett told Plaintiff she &quot;was a bad mother, that [she was] uneducated... [she] was a bad wife,&quot; and that Plaintiff came &quot;from an unsuccessful family&quot;</em>&quot; (quotation marks in original), conduct that the court seemed to associate with elements of <em>Watson v. Dixon</em> (i.e., frightening the plaintiff, humiliation, etc.), cited in the preceding paragraph of the <em>Clark</em> decision.</p>
<p>The difficulty for prevailing on a claim of IIED generally lies in proving that &quot;<em>the defendant's conduct was [...] so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society</em>&quot;, <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/intnco20120419647" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Rogers v. Louisville Land Co.</em>, 367 S.W.3d 196, 207 (2012)</a>. The notion that infidelity &quot;<em>is not tolerated by civilized society</em>&quot; 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.</p>
