Opinion ID: 2514220
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should the Tort Be Adopted in a Marital Setting?

Text: [¶ 20] The husband claims that the wife's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim should have been dismissed because this court has not recognized the tort in a marital context. Although Wyoming has abrogated interspousal immunity and has adopted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we have not had the opportunity to address whether the tort is available in a marital context. Tader v. Tader, 737 P.2d 1065, 1069 (Wyo.1987); Leithead v. American Colloid Co., 721 P.2d 1059, 1065 (Wyo.1986). When this court adopted the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress cause of action, we adopted the definition provided by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965). Leithead, 721 P.2d at 1065. To recover under an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous and that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional harm. Anderson v. Solvay Minerals, Inc., 3 P.3d 236, 241 (Wyo.2000). [¶ 21] Courts and legislatures have historically tried to remain uninvolved in regulating behavior within a marriage in an effort to preserve domestic harmony. Meredith L. Taylor, Comment, North Carolina's Recognition of Tort Liability for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress During Marriage, 32 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1261, 1267 (1997). Recently, however, courts have begun to acknowledge claims for civil relief in the marital context, reasoning that a tort claim may provide a better remedy than a divorce action does. Id. Indeed, judicial recognition of emotional distress claims in the context of marriages has been described as a national trend. Id. [¶ 22] Those who oppose recognizing civil relief among married persons worry that (1) it will open the floodgates to a host of frivolous litigation; (2) because married persons share an intensely personal and intimate relationship, when discord arises, it is inevitable they will suffer emotional distress, often severe; and (3) the inquiry into whether a spouse's conduct is extreme and outrageous constitutes too great an intrusion into the marital relationship. [¶ 23] We acknowledge and have seriously contemplated these concerns. In many marriages, and undoubtedly in most troubled marriages, a high level of emotional antagonism exists between the spouses, and it is likely that volatile circumstances will often be perceived as extreme and outrageous. We have questioned whether legal intrusion into behavior which occurs within a marriage is appropriate and whether legal relief in addition to a divorce is justified for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim in light of this fact. We conclude they are. Emotional distress is as real and tormenting as physical pain, and psychological well-being deserves as much legal protection as physical well-being. Henriksen v. Cameron, 622 A.2d 1135, 1139 (Me.1993). Although the preservation of marital harmony is a respectable goal, behavior which is truly outrageous and results in severe emotional distress should not be protected in some sort of misguided attempt to promote marital peace. Id. [¶ 24] In coming to this decision, we also identified the responsibility to guard against frivolous litigation. Only situations involving atrocious and outrageous behavior should be compensated; conduct which is merely insulting or offensive should not. Taylor, supra, at 1264. [M]ost marriages do not include conduct that will support an action for emotional distress. While most marriages ending in divorce see their share of insults, indignities, threats, annoyances and petty oppressions as well as transient and trivial mental anguish, the Restatement expressly excludes such things from forming the basis for liability. Bradley A. Case, Note, Turning Marital Misery into Financial Fortune: Assertion of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims by Divorcing Spouses, 33 U. Louisville J. Fam. L. 101, 115 (1994). [¶ 25] We emphasize that a high standard for recovery shall exist and direct trial courts to be especially cautious when handling such claims. The focus of such claims must be on the element of outrageousness, and the scrutiny must be stringent enough so that the social good which comes from recognizing the tort in a marital setting will not be undermined by an invasive flood of meritless litigation. Henriksen, 622 A.2d at 1139. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded all possible bounds of decency. Restatement, supra, § 46 cmt. d. In addition: It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Id., at cmt. h. Accordingly, we intend for motions for summary judgment to be carefully considered in an effort to protect defendants from the possibility of long and intrusive trials on frivolous claims. Henriksen, 622 A.2d at 1139-40. [¶ 26] We are convinced that extreme and outrageous conduct by one spouse which results in severe emotional distress to the other spouse should not be ignored by virtue of the marriage of the victim to the aggressor and hold that such behavior can create an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In making this decision, we set the threshold of outrageousness high in hopes it will adequately defend against a flood of frivolous litigation.