Massey v. Massey, D-1129

Decision Date30 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. D-1129,D-1129
PartiesHenry P. MASSEY, Petitioner, v. Gayle Scott MASSEY, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION

GAMMAGE, Justice.

The trial court here found both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 807 S.W.2d 391. These separate findings are each supported by evidence. Consistent with this court's recent holding in Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.1993), that in a divorce proceeding a spouse may recover for intentional (but not negligent) infliction of emotional distress, we deny the application for writ of error. We disapprove the language and holding by the court of appeals that negligent infliction of emotional distress was a viable theory for recovery.

Dissenting opinion by Justice HECHT joined by Justice ENOCH.

HECHT, Justice, dissenting.

In this divorce case, Gayle Massey alleges that her husband Henry's conduct during their marriage was so outrageous that he should pay damages for the emotional distress he intentionally inflicted upon her. Henry denies the charge. The jury agreed with Gayle and awarded her $362,000 for her mental anguish and emotional distress. This Court concludes, as did the court of appeals, that there is evidence from which the jury could reasonably have found that Henry's conduct was outrageous. But neither this Court nor the court of appeals explains what exactly it is about Henry's conduct that makes it outrageous. That is supposed to be self-explanatory. In reality, the standard by which outrageousness is to be measured is the personal opinion of the person asked to decide. That is not a workable legal standard.

The court of appeals has summarized the evidence in this case. 807 S.W.2d 391, 399-400. Henry is, by his own admission, an angry, threatening individual. He is prone to explosive behavior. He often berated his wife in public and private, though he never physically abused her. In anger, Henry once threw a towel at Gayle, sprayed beer on her, screamed at her because she could not drive a boat, slammed a door so hard it gouged a hole in the wall, threw a cup of coffee at the wall, broke a nutcracker, and pulled food from the refrigerator onto the floor. Henry tightly controlled the couple's finances and strictly limited the money he allowed Gayle to spend. When he correctly suspected Gayle was having an affair, he angrily confronted her and her lover. When he feared Gayle was drinking too much, he went through her garbage looking for evidence. When she filed for divorce, he threatened to take custody of their children and tell her friends about her affair.

It is certainly possible to view Henry's conduct as outrageous, which we have defined to mean " 'so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' " Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex.1993) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 cmt. d (1965)). It is also possible to view his conduct as reprehensible, demeaning and intimidating to Gayle, and destructive of their marriage--but not "outrageous". Which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Pitman v. Lightfoot
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 1996
    ...transaction. Markert, 874 S.W.2d at 355; Massey v. Massey, 807 S.W.2d 391, 405 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), writ denied, 867 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.1993). Only if the intention of the parties as expressed on the face of the document is doubtful may the court resort to parol evidence to re......
  • Perez v. Alcoa Fujikura, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 13, 1997
    ...(Tex.App. — Texarkana 1993, writ denied); Massey v. Massey, 807 S.W.2d 391, 405 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), writ denied, 867 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.1993); see also JOHN D. CALAMARI AND JOSEPH M. PERILLO, CONTRACTS § 3-2, at 135-36 (3rd ed.1987). As a substantive rule of law, the parol e......
  • Tapatio Springs Builders v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • November 16, 1999
    ...432 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex.1968). 78. See Massey v. Massey, 807 S.W.2d 391, 405 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), writ denied, 867 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.1993) (parol evidence rule excludes consideration of other evidence of any prior or contemporaneous expressions of the parties relating to th......
  • Johnson v. Standard Fruit and Vegetable Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 1997
    ...employee); Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.1994) (claims adjuster's rude conduct toward insured worker); Massey v. Massey, 867 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.1993) (husband's alleged outrageous conduct directed at his wife); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374 (Tex.1993) (de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT