NOTE: THE SUPREME COURT GIVETH, AND THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN TEXAS: BOYLES v. KERR, 36 TEX. SUP. CT. J. 874 (MAY 5, 1993) * Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your lexis.com® ID to access the full text of this article.
-OR-
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a lexis.com® ID.
 
Price: 
US $22.00 (+ tax)
 
 

Copyright (c) 1993 The School of Law Texas Tech University
Texas Tech Law Review

NOTE: THE SUPREME COURT GIVETH, AND THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN TEXAS: BOYLES v. KERR, 36 TEX. SUP. CT. J. 874 (MAY 5, 1993) *



* As this Casenote goes to press, Boyles v. Kerr has not yet been published in the Southwestern Reporter. The case appears in two places in the Texas Supreme Court Journal. The original opinion of the court by Chief Justice Phillips was withdrawn, with the court's opinion now appearing at 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 874. The concurring and dissenting opinion by then-Justice Cook is with the original opinion at 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 238. The concurring opinion on denial of the motion for rehearing is at page 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 882. The original dissent by Justice Doggett was not withdrawn and is at 36 Sup. Ct. J. 238. Justice Doggett also wrote a dissenting opinion on denial of the motion for rehearing, which is at 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 884.

1993

24 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1247

Author

RICHARD A. GINSBURG

Excerpt

I. INTRODUCTION

Susan Kerr and Dan Boyles had their first date, to Kerr's senior prom, in May, 1985. 1 Many teens recall their senior proms with pleasant memories; however, Kerr and Boyles' experience would ultimately lead to more than seven years of litigation over the surreptitious videotaping of a later sexual encounter. Although the couple did not have a steady relationship, they met several times in the ensuing months, with each meeting concluding in sexual activity. 2 Boyles and Kerr planned to go out the evening of August 10, 1985, and Boyles arranged with a friend, Karl Broesche, to use Broesche's parents' home as a site for the next sexual encounter. 3 Broesche suggested videotaping Boyles and Kerr engaging in sexual intercourse, to which Boyles agreed. 4 While Boyles went to pick up Kerr, Broesche and two of his friends hid a camera in the bedroom. 5 They focused the camera on the bed, turned on the recorder, made crude remarks about what was about to happen, and identified themselves on the tape before leaving. 6 Boyles returned to the home with Kerr and, without her knowledge, recorded their ensuing sexual activities on videotape. 7

Boyles subsequently retrieved the videotape from Broesche and showed it to ten friends on three occasions at private residences. 8 Gossip about the incident began to spread from the group that originally viewed the tape, ultimately reaching many of Boyles' and Kerr's friends at their respective universities. 9 The stories also spread to ...
 
 
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
 
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
 
 
 
 

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

 
LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to lexis.com
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities