middle of the night so he could invite another woman inside.
He engaged in casual violence towards Jane in front of his
family. He chased her down when she tried to leave. He told
her that it was pointless to call the police. Little wonder that
she says she felt “depressed, violated and alone”.
 There are other factors in this case that argue for
a lower general damages award. N.M.s’ assault and battery of Jane
did not leave Jane with any permanent physical injuries. She has
furthermore not produced any medical records or records of psychological counselling. In her affidavit, she focuses on the impact of
N.M.s’ posting of the sex video on the Internet, and does not specify what injuries result from the assault and battery. She does say
that she obtained psychological counselling before and after M.K.’s
birth, years before she learned about the Internet posting.
 Weighing these factors and the case law on the range of
damages, I conclude that Jane should is entitled to the full amount
of general damages of $20,000 that she has claimed from N.M.. I
would in fact have awarded her up to $25,000 if a higher amount
had been sought. This amount is in the higher range of damages
awarded in cases involving violence against spouses that do not result in any permanent physical injury. It is appropriate due to the
repeated, ongoing nature of N.M.s’ physical and verbal abuse and
Jane’s vivid evidence on the terrifying nature of the incidents in
September 2013 and March 2014. Even in the absence of any permanent physical injury, I am persuaded that this experience has
left Jane with significant emotional and psychological trauma. A
lesser award would not adequately compensate Jane for what she
experienced when she was pregnant with M.K. and in the months
that followed his birth.
 The M.s are jointly and severally liable for damages for
N.M.s’ assault and battery because they failed to take any meaningful steps to ensure Jane’s safety in their home. It is not clear on
the evidence that they witnessed any instances of assault and battery by N.M. prior to September 2013. However, given that the
$20,000 award is less compensation than Jane is entitled to, I conclude that the M.s should be jointly liable for this full amount.
Damages for breach of privacy
 This is a classic case of what is commonly referred to as
“revenge porn”.50 N.M. has admitted, through his text to Jane,
50 Some legal scholars view the term “revenge porn” as problematic, because it
overlooks other reasons for sharing intimate images, such as financial gain, and
may eroticize the harm caused by the posting of intimate images; see Clare