People Who Pass On AIDS Virus May be Sued

[OTO]

July 4, 2006
People Who Pass On AIDS Virus May be Sued
By ADAM LIPTAK

People infected with the virus that causes AIDS may sue the ***ual partner who transmitted the virus to them even if the partner did not do so knowingly, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

Bridget B. and John B., as they are known in court papers, started dating in 1998 and married in July 2000. Bridget said that John told her he was healthy and monogamous and that he urged her to have unprotected *** with him. In October 2000, though, she tested positive for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, as did he.

Bridget later learned, her lawsuit says, that John had had *** with men before and during their marriage. She seeks compensation for what she says was John's infliction of emotional distress and fraud.

In his own court papers, John responded that he had tested negative for H.I.V. in August 2000 and that in fact Bridget had infected him.

The immediate issue before the court was how much information about John's ***ual history he had to turn over in the litigation. To answer that question, though, the majority ruled, it had to determine what Bridget had to prove to win her case.

John conceded that he would be liable if he had affirmatively known, by means of an AIDS test or medical diagnosis, that he was infected when he had *** with Bridget. But he argued that the information Bridget sought could at best show that he had reason to know he was infected and that such so-called constructive knowledge should not be enough to give rise to liability.

Courts in other states have allowed lawsuits for the negligent transmission of ***ual diseases based on both actual and constructive knowledge, but they have only rarely confronted the question in the context of H.I.V.

The California court imposed a relatively broad standard yesterday, allowing suits based on constructive knowledge.

"The burden of a duty of care on defendants who know or have reason to know of their H.I.V. infection is minimal, and the consequences for the community would be salutary," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the four-justice majority.

A fifth justice issued a mixed opinion, and two dissented.

Katharine K. Baker, a law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law and the co-author of a law review article on the legal consequences of reckless ***, said the majority had struck roughly the right balance.

"It suggests," Ms. Baker said of the ruling, "that you are responsible for understanding the ramifications of your past ***ual activities and must also be responsible in current ***ual activity."

Eric S. Multhaup, John's lawyer, said he welcomed some aspects of the decision that limited information his client had to turn over. But Mr. Multhaup said he was mystified by the ruling on the responsibilities of people who may have reason to know they are infected.

"The court did not define what a person is supposed to do with any clarity or specificity," he said. "It's not going to help the people of California in knowing how to go about their social lives."

The justices in the majority said allowing suits based on both actual and constructive knowledge created the right incentives. Otherwise, Justice Baxter wrote, people might avoid being tested to make sure they could not be sued by their partners.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno, in dissent, scoffed at that argument, saying it was hard to believe someone would take liability into account in deciding whether to get tested.

The ruling "potentially licenses invasions into the ***ual privacy of all ***ually active Californians and may even invite abuse of the judicial process," Justice Moreno said. "One can easily foresee a spate of 'shakedown' or vengeance lawsuits brought by plaintiffs whose motivation is not so much to discover how they contracted H.I.V. as to force lucrative settlements or embarrass a former ***ual partner by exposing that person's ***ual history."


I wonder what our local SC would've ruled in a case like this.

[uls]

Then everyone who has HIV can sue the person who infected him/her.

If a guy gets sued by a girl coz he infected her with HIV, then the guy can also sue the person who infected him.... and that person who infected him can also sue the person who infected him/her, and so forth and so on...

Then every hiv+ person would have to track down every person they suspect who had infected them... and sue them.

hmmmm... that would be a huge network of people...its gonna be like one huge HIV+ friendster hehe

[Bogeyman]

Then everyone who has HIV can sue the person who infected him/her.

If a guy gets sued by a girl coz he infected her with HIV, then the guy can also sue the person who infected him.... and that person who infected him can also sue the person who infected him/her, and so forth and so on...

Then every hiv+ person would have to track down every person they suspect who had infected them... and sue them.

hmmmm... that would be a huge network of people...its gonna be like one huge HIV+ friendster hehe

The way I interpret it, this applies only to people who acquired HIV through unprotected ***ual contact.

What about those who got HIV through blood transfusions or needle-sharing?

[tsupermario]

nyak akala ko SC natin... controversial is the recent ruling on Estrada vs Escritur case

[uls]

i think u can sue the hospital where u got infected... maybe... i dunno

that law is an angry law. used by angry infected people. i mean... the infected person is not the only victim. every HIV+ person is a victim. Every HIV+ person was a HIV negative person who got infected.

Do punish those who intentionally infect others.

But don't punish those who didnt know their HIV status when they infected others. its already bad enough that they have the virus. why burden them even more with a lawsuit?

[GlennSter]

hmmm..mejo ot...may nagsabi sakin na co worker ko na there is no such thing daw as AIDS as a disease...kaya lang daw tinawag na aids dahil hindi alam ang gamot....hmm..any info about this guys?nasa net daw pero i cant seem to find it.

[OTO]

hmmm..mejo ot...may nagsabi sakin na co worker ko na there is no such thing daw as AIDS as a disease...kaya lang daw tinawag na aids dahil hindi alam ang gamot....hmm..any info about this guys?nasa net daw pero i cant seem to find it.

Ask him if the world is flat and your co-worker will probably say yes.

[GlennSter]

Ask him if the world is flat and your co-worker will probably say yes.

hahaha..oo nga..diko alam paano ngingiti nung sinasabi niya sakin.but there was a study daw.ewan.

[Horsepower]

morbid as this may sound, the only cure to AIDS at this time is to have another "holocaust". This time, not the Jews, only HIV+ peeps using a big incinerator.

It is very practical and logical but then again, a lot of people will surely oppose it. They'd argue over human rights, yada yada yada....

But really, this is the bottomline solution with real results. If every HIV+ person is burned, then there will be no more AIDS, then we can all have unprotected *** whenever, wherever we want to. hehe.

Plus the money being spent on AIDS cure development could be channelled to more important problems such as hunger and famine.

Hopefully not, if ever i'm inflicted with AIDS, I'd be the first to blow my head. At least I died with dignity and not cause my family shame. hehe

[empy]

when i was younger and living in California i used to temp at a large paralegal firm. the big debate was around whether someone who knowingly or carelessly passes on AIDS could be convicted of murder or at least manslaughter. i don't know if anyone ever got charged and/or convicted.

however, one of our clients (a law firm) was able to win a suit against a large LA hospital for accidentally infecting their client with HIV through a blood transfusion. the award was $1M plus.

morbid as this may sound, the only cure to AIDS at this time is to have another "holocaust". This time, not the Jews, only HIV+ peeps using a big incinerator.

It is very practical and logical but then again, a lot of people will surely oppose it. They'd argue over human rights, yada yada yada....

But really, this is the bottomline solution with real results. If every HIV+ person is burned, then there will be no more AIDS, then we can all have unprotected *** whenever, wherever we want to. hehe.

Plus the money being spent on AIDS cure development could be channelled to more important problems such as hunger and famine.

Hopefully not, if ever i'm inflicted with AIDS, I'd be the first to blow my head. At least I died with dignity and not cause my family shame. hehe

wow, our first mass murder advocate. you need to get banned from here immediately.