Heart Balm Torts in the United States and The Justifications of Their Existence

Criminal conversation and breach of promise to marry are the so-called “heart balm” causes of action in the United States. Criminal conversation tort is designed to compensate the plaintiffs—betrayed spouses—with monetary damages against the tortfeasors who committed adulteries. Breach of promise to marry tort is designed to compensate the victims with damages for the broken promise to marry. These heart balm torts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have been abolished or heavily modified by many states through state statutes—anti-heart balm statutes —with a reason that the heart balm torts may not be effective or desirable in addressing the personal losses from extramarital conducts like adulteries and other misdeeds. However, in minority of states, the heart balm torts are still alive and somewhat active, indicating that this issue still remains as one of the thorny legal issues in the United States. The torts of breach of promise to marry and criminal conversation should continue to play an important role in recognizing and protecting the value and sanctity of marriage institution. The breach of promise to marry tort is to recognize the value of marriage promises by making these promises to be binding and enforceable. Criminal conversation tort is to protect the sanctity of marriage relationships. Despite the existence of reasons for abolishing the heart balm torts, it seems that the benefits and necessities in continuing with this form of marriage related torts outweigh the concerns and problems associated with the torts. It is important that tort law continues to ensure the wrongdoers to be accountable and to allow redress for the immensely harmful human devastation that is inflicted on the victims. Additionally, intentional infliction of emotional distress should be used as a substitute or an additional means of getting remedies for the marital injuries if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of causing the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. An IIED claim can have a stronger basis if a cause of action arises out of fiduciary relationship, as courts held that legal relations between fiduciary and client add a more dimension to an act of adultery or alienation of affection.