Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 12 - Commentary on Boyles v. Kerr

  • from Part IV - Negligence and Vicarious Liability
  • Edited by Martha Chamallas, Ohio State University, Lucinda M. Finley, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tort Opinions
    Published online:
    28 November 2020
    Print publication:
    10 December 2020, pp 261-290

  • 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.