## Facts

- Sheila Kay Twyman and William E. Twyman married in 1969.
- In 1985, Sheila filed for divorce and later added a tort claim seeking damages for emotional harm.
- Sheila alleged William “intentionally and cruelly” attempted to engage her in “deviate sexual acts.”
- Evidence indicated William pursued sadomasochistic bondage activities with Sheila despite knowing she had a prior rape experience that made such conduct especially traumatic.
- After a bench trial, the trial court dissolved the marriage, divided the marital estate, awarded Sheila conservatorship of the children, ordered child support, and awarded Sheila $15,000 plus interest for emotional distress.
- William appealed only the emotional-distress award; the court of appeals affirmed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.
- While the case was pending, the Texas Supreme Court held in a separate case that Texas does not recognize a stand-alone tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim for infliction of emotional distress may be brought and tried in the same proceeding as a divorce.
2. Whether Texas recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and if so, what elements govern it.
3. Whether a judgment affirmed on negligent infliction of emotional distress could stand, and whether the pleadings and proof permitted retrial under an intentional infliction theory.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court expressly adopted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in Texas.
- The Court held that an IIED claim may be joined with a divorce proceeding, subject to res judicata and safeguards against double recovery.
- The Court reaffirmed that there is no stand-alone cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Texas.
- Because the judgment below rested on negligent infliction and could not be sustained on that or any other basis, a new trial was ordered; the wife’s pleadings were broad enough to support IIED and fairness favored allowing litigation under the correct theory.

## Legal Principles

- Texas recognizes IIED consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46.
- Elements of IIED: (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress.
- IIED functions as a limited “gap-filler” tort for severe emotional injury not adequately addressed by other causes of action.
- Texas does not recognize a free-standing tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Tort claims between spouses, including IIED, may be litigated with a divorce, but courts must prevent double recovery (e.g., tort damages and a disproportionate community-property division based on the same conduct).

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court formally recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress, permitted its joinder with divorce proceedings, rejected negligent infliction as an independent tort, and remanded for a new trial so the parties could litigate the emotional-distress claim under the newly adopted IIED standard without duplicative compensation.


Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993)