Jun 23, 2026 · 27 min · 12 segments
Send us Fan Mail What happens when the law recognizes a form of abuse that leaves no visible bruises? Gavin Tighe and Stephen Thiele examine a…
No entities detected.
Stephen ThieleHostas being a new cause of action that is capable of sustaining a claim by a, I suppose, injured would be one way to describe it, or a spouse who has been the subject of intimate partner violence and what that means within the context of the tort and can now sue their, I suppose, former spouse or partner for those actions.
Now, it was just kind of before we got on air here, looking at the amount of money that was awarded in this case, and it's not a tort that's going to necessarily... produce a huge amount of a monetary reward.
I think the lady here in this case, the former wife, got a total of $150,000 for the abuse, coercion, and control of her husband.
But Certainly a groundbreaking or landmark decision that is going to have, I think, Gavin, a lot of ramifications within intimate partner relationships.
There are some cultural issues, I suppose, that may impact this kind of a case, but a huge case for women's rights in particular.
I mean, women are obviously disproportionately the victims of intimate partner violence in male-female relationships simply because the male theoretically has the physical ability to abuse the spouse.
And I think also, but I think the court went a little further than the usual sort of actual violence in the sense of like, you know, um, assault.
I mean, I think the court went further than that and went into what I'll call is mental abuse of, uh, overt control or controlling behavior that effectively dehumanizes the spouse and, uh, makes them a victim very much, even, even up and beyond physical violence.
And I think in that regard, the word violence may be inappropriate in terms of the naming of the tort, because as you say, it doesn't necessarily, as far as I can tell, require any kind of physical violence.
And that's part of the reason for the creation of the tort, because if it was physical violence that was being compensated, that would fall under assault in general.
whether it's some form of mind control or just behavior such that the other spouse lives in fear, basically, afraid to go out and get a job.
In this case, the husband prevented the wife from traveling for her mother's funeral.
as being a new cause of action that is capable of sustaining a claim by a, I suppose, injured would be one way to describe it, or a spouse who has been the subject of intimate partner violence and what that means within the context of the tort and can now sue their, I suppose, former spouse or partner for those actions.
Now, it was just kind of before we got on air here, looking at the amount of money that was awarded in this case, and it's not a tort that's going to necessarily... produce a huge amount of a monetary reward.
I think the lady here in this case, the former wife, got a total of $150,000 for the abuse, coercion, and control of her husband.
But Certainly a groundbreaking or landmark decision that is going to have, I think, Gavin, a lot of ramifications within intimate partner relationships.
There are some cultural issues, I suppose, that may impact this kind of a case, but a huge case for women's rights in particular.
I mean, women are obviously disproportionately the victims of intimate partner violence in male-female relationships simply because the male theoretically has the physical ability to abuse the spouse.
And I think also, but I think the court went a little further than the usual sort of actual violence in the sense of like, you know, um, assault.
I mean, I think the court went further than that and went into what I'll call is mental abuse of, uh, overt control or controlling behavior that effectively dehumanizes the spouse and, uh, makes them a victim very much, even, even up and beyond physical violence.
And I think in that regard, the word violence may be inappropriate in terms of the naming of the tort, because as you say, it doesn't necessarily, as far as I can tell, require any kind of physical violence.
And that's part of the reason for the creation of the tort, because if it was physical violence that was being compensated, that would fall under assault in general.
whether it's some form of mind control or just behavior such that the other spouse lives in fear, basically, afraid to go out and get a job.
In this case, the husband prevented the wife from traveling for her mother's funeral.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.