Henriksen v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 24 March 1993
• Citation: 622 A.2d 1135
• Parties: Marie B. HENRIKSEN v. John Malcolm CAMERON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1135

622 A.2d 1135

Marie B. HENRIKSEN v. John Malcolm CAMERON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued April 28, 1992.

Reargued Sept. 18, 1992.

Decided March 24, 1993.

Paul F. Macri (orally) and Tyler Kolle, Berman & Simmons, Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Peter L. Murray (orally) and Ann M. Courtney, Murray, Plumb & Murray, Portland, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS and RUDMAN, JJ.

COLLINS, Justice.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether a spouse, now divorced, may recover for emotional suffering intentionally inflicted by the former spouse during their marital relationship through physical violence and accompanying verbal abuse. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the injured plaintiff, Marie B. Henriksen, in her action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former husband, John Malcolm Cameron. Cameron appealed asserting two evidentiary challenges and raising the question whether Henriksen's tort action is barred after the parties' divorce judgment by the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, he argues that the action is barred by the doctrine of interspousal immunity. We hold that Henriksen's action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not barred either by the doctrine of interspousal immunity or res judicata. We also find that the evidentiary issues raised by Cameron did not constitute reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Facts and Procedure

The parties met in England in November 1973 and were married in March 1974. They lived in Goose Rocks Beach where they operated Henriksen's seasonal hotel, the Tides Inn. Henriksen and Cameron separated in the fall of 1986. During the course of their marriage, Cameron physically and emotionally abused Henriksen. This abuse ranged from Cameron's accusing Henriksen of "sleeping with" his brother to his raping and assaulting her. ¹ Following the separation, Henriksen filed a complaint for divorce on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. On the day the divorce was scheduled to be heard, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, and agreed that Henriksen would amend the ground of her divorce complaint to irreconcilable differences. In July 1988, the Superior Court (York County, Cole, J.) granted the parties a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences and, following the parties' oral settlement agreement, divided their marital property and ordered that neither party was required to pay alimony, separate support, or maintenance to the other.

In April 1989, Henriksen sued Cameron for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from physical and psychological abuse. At the close of Henriksen's case, the Superior Court (Fritzsche, J.) granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. ² Since we are not vacating the judgment, only the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is before us.

The jury found in favor of Henriksen on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and awarded her $75,000 in compensatory damages and $40,000 in punitive damages. Cameron appeals from that judgment.

I. Interspousal Immunity

In 1877, we embraced the doctrine of interspousal immunity, holding that "the general principle of the common law [is] that husband and wife are one person ... and ... being one person, one cannot sue the other." Abbott v. Abbott, 67 Me. 304, 306 (1877). In Abbott we reasoned, "it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forgive and forget." Id. at 307. The Abbott court held that a tort remedy was not necessary, stating:

Practically, the married woman has remedy enough. The criminal courts are open to her ... [and] [a]s a last resort, if need be, she can prosecute at her husband's expense a suit for divorce.

Id. See also Moulton v. Moulton, 309 A.2d 224 (Me.1973) (interspousal immunity did not bar action for conduct prior to marriage but did bar action for conduct occurring during marriage).

In a 1980 negligence action by a wife against her husband for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, however, we overruled Abbott, holding:

[O]ne person is not precluded from maintaining an action to recover damages caused by the alleged tortious conduct of another person solely because the conduct complained of occurred while they were husband and wife.

MacDonald v. MacDonald, 412 A.2d 71, 73 (Me.1980). We adopted a cautious approach, however, and in a footnote, said:

[T]his decision does not extend to other areas of the law where the special nature of the marital relationship may have impact for various other reasons of policy. Examples of such different considerations of policy are ... the treatment of particular conduct between husband and wife, by virtue of the mutual concessions that may be implicit in the marital relationship, as privileged or not tortious, even though such conduct as between persons not married to each other may not be so regarded.

Id. at 75 n. 5. ³ The issue before us then, is whether physical violence accompanied by verbal abuse that was intended to inflict emotional distress is, by virtue of the mutual concessions implicit in marriage, privileged or not tortious because the parties were married to each other when that violence occurred. We hold that it is not so privileged.

In Vicnire v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 401 A.2d 148 (Me.1979), we recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and adopted the definition provided by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. Accordingly, a plaintiff asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress is required to show:

(1) the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress or was certain that such distress would result from his conduct; (2) the conduct was so "extreme and outrageous" as to exceed "all possible bounds of decency" and must be regarded as "atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community;" (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff's emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was so "severe" that "no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."

Id. at 154 (citations omitted). We later recognized that "[a] person's psychic well-being is as much entitled to legal protection as is his physical well-being." Gammon v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., Inc., 534 A.2d 1282, 1283 (Me.1987).

Deciding actions for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from conduct occurring within the marital setting requires special caution. Policy concerns raised in Abbott over 100 years ago remain important today. Certainly we no longer consider the husband and wife a single legal entity barring all suits between them. ⁴ Nevertheless, we do recognize the desire to preserve marital harmony. In this case, brought after the parties were divorced, there is clearly no marital harmony remaining to be preserved. Moreover, behavior that is "utterly intolerable in a civilized society" and is intended to cause severe emotional distress is not behavior that should be protected in order to promote marital harmony and peace. ⁵

A second policy concern is the threat of excessive and frivolous litigation intruding into the marital lives of the parties. Admittedly, this is of particular concern after a divorce since the events leading to most divorces involve some level of emotional distress and the likelihood of vindictive post-divorce litigation may be especially high. One court has expressed this concern as follows:

[I]n determining when the tort of outrage [i.e. intentional infliction of emotional distress] should be recognized in the marital setting, the threshold of outrageousness should be set high enough--or the circumstances in which the tort is recognized be described precisely enough ...--that the social good from recognizing the tort will not be outweighed by unseemly and invasive litigation of meritless claims.

Hakkila v. Hakkila, 112 N.M. 172, 812 P.2d 1320, 1326 (App.1991). The showing required of a plaintiff in order to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress provides a built-in safeguard against excessive and frivolous litigation. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was so "extreme and outrageous" it exceeded "all possible bounds of decency." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. Jurors, many of whom are themselves married, are in the best possible position to determine what behavior between spouses is "atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community," id., and what behavior is within the "ebb and flow" of married life. In order to protect defendants from the possibility of long and intrusive trials on meritless claims, motions for summary judgment should also be viewed sympathetically in interspousal cases. See Hakkila, 812 P.2d at 1327.

Another policy concern raised in Abbott was that a tort action for compensation was simply redundant. Abbott, 67 Me. at 307. In Maine, a spouse may seek the cessation of abuse via a protective order or a consent agreement. 19 M.R.S.A. § 766 (1981 & Supp.1992). Violation of a protective order or consent agreement constitutes a Class D crime. 19 M.R.S.A. § 769 (1981 & Supp.1992). These provisions, however, provide no compensatory relief for injuries sustained. Id.; see also Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 388 A.2d 951, 962 (1978) ("The criminal law may vindicate society's interest in punishing a wrongdoer but it cannot compensate an injured spouse for her or his suffering or injury.").

Divorce also provides no compensatory relief. See Merenoff, 388 A.2d at 962 ("Divorce or separation provide escape from tortious abuse but can hardly be equated with a civil right to redress and compensate for personal injuries."). In Maine, courts are not allowed to consider fault in the distribution of property on divorce. Eaton v. Eaton, 447...