Boyles v. Kerr
Facts
Boyles, then seventeen, secretly videotaped Kerr, then nineteen, engaging in sexual intercourse with him after arranging for friends to hide a camera in a bedroom. Boyles later showed the tape to ten friends on three occasions, and gossip about the tape spread among their social circles and at their universities. Kerr learned of the videotape months later, confronted Boyles, obtained the tape, and claimed humiliation, severe emotional distress, reputational harm, academic effects, and the need for psychological counseling. Although she originally pleaded invasion of privacy and negligent infliction theories, before submission to the jury she abandoned all claims except negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Issue
Does Texas recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent cause of action imposing a general duty not to negligently cause emotional distress? If not, may Kerr nonetheless recover mental anguish damages or affirmance on some alternative theory she did not submit?
Rule
Texas does not recognize an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and imposes no general duty not to negligently inflict emotional distress. A claimant may recover mental anguish damages only in connection with the defendant's breach of some other duty imposed by law, and where such damages are otherwise recoverable, no physical manifestation of the emotional distress is required. This holding does not alter existing bystander recovery rules or other established causes of action that permit mental anguish damages based on breach of a specific legal duty.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Under Texas law as stated by the majority, is Noah most likely to recover?