Rosenthal v. Erven
2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 6, 17 P.3d 558, 172 Or. App. 20 (2001)
Rule of Law:
In Oregon, an extramarital affair, even between acquaintances and despite the cuckolded spouse's appeal to cease the relationship, does not, as a matter of law, constitute 'outrageous' conduct for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) unless accompanied by additional factors like a breach of fiduciary duty, coercion, or ulterior motive.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and his wife were married and had two children.
- Plaintiff's wife worked at the same church as defendant, who was also married with children, and their families occasionally socialized.
- In April 1997, plaintiff's wife consulted an attorney about legal separation after plaintiff's second DUI arrest, and she and plaintiff sought marital counseling.
- In early May 1997, plaintiff's wife and defendant began a consensual sexual relationship, meeting a few times at her house while plaintiff was away.
- Later that month, plaintiff's wife told him about the relationship, and plaintiff subsequently approached defendant at his home, asking him to discourage the relationship with plaintiff's wife.
- Plaintiff and his wife separated in July 1997, and plaintiff's wife later discovered she was pregnant with defendant's child, filing for marital dissolution that fall.
- Defendant reconciled with his wife, and his relationship with plaintiff's wife ended that winter.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against defendant in the trial court.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing his conduct was not directed at plaintiff, any emotional distress suffered was not severe, and his conduct was not outrageous.
- The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that his conduct was not 'so far beyond the bounds of social toleration that it should be actionable.'
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a consensual extramarital relationship between a plaintiff's spouse and an acquaintance, which causes the plaintiff emotional distress and contributes to the dissolution of the marriage, constitute 'outrageous in the extreme' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Linder, J.
No, a consensual extramarital relationship, without additional aggravating factors, does not constitute 'outrageous in the extreme' conduct for an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that defendant's conduct was not an "extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct." The court acknowledged that while unfortunate, extramarital relationships are not uncommon in modern society, a fact reflected in the widespread abolition of 'heart balm' torts like criminal conversation and alienation of affections in Oregon and nationally. The court emphasized the consensual nature of the relationship, noting the absence of deception, coercion, overbearance, or ulterior motive on defendant’s part, and found no special or fiduciary relationship between the parties. The court distinguished the case from Spiess v. Johnson, where a psychiatrist's sexual relationship with a patient's wife involved a breach of fiduciary duty, psychological manipulation, and potentially sinister motives, thus presenting facts that could be considered outrageous. Here, the court found no such aggravating factors and concluded that common behaviors, even if painful, do not rise to the extraordinary level required for an IIED claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for proving 'outrageous' conduct in intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, particularly in the context of domestic disputes. By affirming that a consensual extramarital affair, absent aggravating factors like a breach of fiduciary duty or coercion, does not meet the standard, the court reinforces the modern legal trend away from 'heart balm' torts and limits the scope of IIED in such situations. This ruling suggests that courts are reluctant to intervene in the emotional fallout of consensual private relationships, even when they cause significant distress, unless the conduct involves extreme manipulation or exploitation beyond mere infidelity.
