12 - Commentary on Boyles v. Kerr

Summary

Boyles v. Kerr exemplifies judicial reluctance to permit tort claims for negligently inflicted emotional harm. Severely curtailing prior cases that permitted claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), the Texas Supreme Court rejected the claim for a woman whose sexual partner surreptitiously videotaped their intercourse and displayed the tape at college parties. The feminist rewritten opinion reverses this ruling, making the NIED claim fully available to the victim of revenge porn. It demonstrates gender bias in the court’s conflicting precedents, which approved NIED claims for women comporting with traditional notions of femininity, while denying the claim for the sexually liberated plaintiff. It powerfully asserts the value and dignity of all women and the importance of tort law in deterring callous male behavior that objectifies women. The accompanying commentary situates the case in the development of NIED law and highlights how NIED law is permeated with gender stereotypes.