## Facts

- Richard L. Strauss and Thomas Cilek were friends since childhood.
- Cilek had a consensual romantic and sexual relationship with Strauss’s wife for about one year.
- Strauss learned of the affair only after it ended.
- When Strauss sued, he and his wife were in the process of divorcing.
- The summary-judgment record indicated preexisting marital problems, including the wife’s prior affair with another friend of Strauss.
- Strauss sought actual and punitive damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) based on Cilek’s relationship with his wife.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record viewed most favorably to Strauss, Cilek’s affair with Strauss’s wife could reasonably be found “outrageous” conduct sufficient to satisfy the threshold element of IIED.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying summary judgment instead of resolving the “outrageousness” element as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the order denying Cilek’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Cilek was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the record did not generate a genuine issue of material fact on whether his conduct was “outrageous.”
- The case was remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for Cilek on Strauss’s IIED claim.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the resisting party must set out specific facts showing a triable issue.
- IIED requires: (1) outrageous conduct; (2) intent to cause, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation.
- The court acts as a gatekeeper on “outrageousness” and must decide in the first instance whether the conduct may reasonably be regarded as outrageous.
- “Outrageous” conduct must be so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
- Consensual extramarital relationships, even involving betrayal of friendship and contributing to marital breakdown, ordinarily do not meet the legal threshold for “outrageous” conduct in an IIED claim.

## Conclusion

The court required summary judgment for the defendant because, even taking the facts in the plaintiff’s favor, a consensual affair with the plaintiff’s spouse did not meet Iowa’s stringent “outrageousness” standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly given the marital context and existing marital discord shown in the record.


Strauss v. Cilek, 418 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987)