LRWSupreme Court of Texas, 1993draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Twyman v. Twyman

855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993)

Texas adopts the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in a divorce case

In one lineEn una línea: Texas recognizes IIED with four elements: intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous, causing emotional distress that is severe.Texas reconoce el IIED con cuatro elementos: conducta intencional o imprudente, extrema y ultrajante, que cause angustia emocional severa.
RuleRegla: To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) the conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and (4) the distress was severe (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46).
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso: The source of the four-element IIED test every Texas memo cites; your Discussion section starts here.
Procedural posturePostura procesal: Wife recovered emotional distress damages in a divorce; the court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded for trial under the newly adopted IIED standard.

Facts

During a divorce, the wife sought damages for emotional distress, alleging that her husband had pressured her into sexual practices that he knew caused her anguish because of a past trauma. The trial court awarded damages on a negligent infliction theory.

Procedural posture

The court of appeals affirmed. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Texas rejected negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort (Boyles v. Kerr). In Twyman the court recognized intentional infliction instead, reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue

Whether Texas recognizes intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort, and whether it may be asserted in a divorce proceeding.

Holding

Yes to both. The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 and its four elements, and allowed the claim in a divorce subject to a bar on double recovery.

Reasoning

Most states had adopted § 46; the tort fills a gap for intentional conduct so outrageous that no reasonable person should have to endure the resulting distress. Recklessness suffices for the first element. Because the trial court used the wrong theory, the facts had to be re-evaluated under the new elements.

Rule (own words)

Four elements, all required: intent or recklessness; extreme and outrageous conduct; causation; severe distress. The tort is narrow by design.

What-ifs

If the conduct is merely insulting or inconsiderate, element two fails (GTE Southwest).
If another tort covers the harm, IIED is unavailable as a gap-filler (Hoffmann-La Roche v. Zeltwanger).

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Why did the case have to be retried?

The trial court had used a negligent infliction theory that Texas abolished in Boyles v. Kerr; the Supreme Court adopted IIED instead and sent the case back to be tried under the new elements.

Can an IIED claim be joined with a divorce?

Yes, but the court warned against double recovery: the property division cannot also compensate the same conduct.

Which element is hardest in the Marcus Carter memo?

Extreme and outrageous conduct, plus the threshold problem that the gravamen looks like defamation (Zeltwanger, Draker).

intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)elements vs. factors gravamen intent and recklessness (IIED)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-10-09, 2026-10-12, 2026-10-26, 2026-11-02

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion; IIED memo (LRW).