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.

[Horsepower]

I wasn't advocating mass murder, I merely presented a feasibility of a way to curb AIDS.

Besides, that's just my opinion. It's not some law or something. If yours is to let AIDS spread, then I respect your views.

[mazdamazda]

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.

ahhh... medyo malabo yan glenn.

HIV is the cause of AIDS disease as it is a virus.

AIDS is the collective symptoms / diseases that you get from HIV.

yes, there is still no 100% cure for AIDS but the HIV infection can be slowed (even to the extent of stopping the its spread) down if it is detected early on. a cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs can prolong a patient's lifespan for more than two decades. long-term testing of side-effects is still undergoing.

[mazdamazda]

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.

You've gotta be kidding me! All for the sake of having unprotected *** whenever and wherever you want to?

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

How about we channel money being spent on cosmetic surgery / tobacco / alcohol / guns 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

That's one problem that we have... we treat people with HIV/AIDS as if they don't already lost their dignity.

And by taking a shortcut through suicide when you aren't man enough to face your problems dignified? Yeah right.

I wasn't advocating mass murder, I merely presented a feasibility of a way to curb AIDS.

Besides, that's just my opinion. It's not some law or something. If yours is to let AIDS spread, then I respect your views.

You mean... killing 40M people is not mass murder? Wow!

[BlueBimmer]

wow meron pala tayo dito may Hitler complex.

anyway some people infected with HIV have lived for more than 10 yrs. and not get full blown AIDS..they have to adjust their lifestyle and take HIV meds to keep the virus at bay. as long as the disease do not progress to full blown AIDS, then they can live life somewhat normally.

[uls]

I wasn't advocating mass murder, I merely presented a feasibility of a way to curb AIDS.

Besides, that's just my opinion. It's not some law or something. If yours is to let AIDS spread, then I respect your views.

Bird flu? Kill the chickens. Food and mouth disease? Kill the pigs.
Mad cow? Kill the cows. HIV? Kill the people.

Im sure there are other people who have thought of that. They just dont verbalize it.

There are people in power who think that way.

The white neoconservatives in the US govt still believe up to this day that AIDS is a punishment from God. They still believe people who get AIDS deserve it.

The neocons and their allies (big banks, big business) have to power to end hunger and ease the spread of AIDS in Africa but they allow it to happen coz they believe rapidly growing 3rd world populations are a threat to the West. They quietly hope hunger and disease would wipe out the 3rd world.

[empy]

I wasn't advocating mass murder, I merely presented a feasibility of a way to curb AIDS.

Besides, that's just my opinion. It's not some law or something. If yours is to let AIDS spread, then I respect your views.

wahaha!! just because i don't agree with BURNING (your words) 40 million people alive, then i am automatically for letting AIDS spread. i didn't think you could come up with something more moronic than your first post, but you proved me wrong. congratulations.

here are some of the people you say we should burn:


more than a thousand babies are born with HIV every year in the US alone. i guess they deserve to be put to death, huh?

your kind of thinking is FAR WORSE for the world than having normal people around who have AIDS.

[GlennSter]

guys easy lang....

i think may misunderstanding lang dito...

hintayin natin.

[uls]

HAHA burn everyone with HIV... why not burn everyone with TB?

Or why not burn everyone with genes that can cause cancer, premature baldness, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease... so they wont be able to spread their genes to succeeding generations.

heck, why not just wipe out the entire human race. We all have a disease that we pass from generation to generation ---- its called aging.

[Bogeyman]

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.

You will still have a whole slew of venereal diseases to deal with; AIDS isn't the only one spread through unprotected ***.

Besides, the solution to the AIDS pandemic should not be solely in the interest of wanton licentiousness. If you want to have all the unprotected *** you can have without any of the risks, get a pillow.

We all have a disease that we pass from generation to generation ---- its called aging.

Worse. It's alternately been called intolerance and discrimination.

Assuming that Horsepower's 'suggestion' is indeed feasible, all it does is sweep the dirt under the rug, so to speak. People with HIV and AIDS have more than enough to put up with; condemning them outright with ignorance and hate, disguised as "practical" and "logical" solutions, hardly addresses anything.

[boydapa]

dami ko kamag anak babaero na yun iba nandun pa sa states nagpapasaway eh bakit lang hiya hangang ngayon buhay pa eh ilan dekada na nandun? wala namang iniinom na gamot. dati nun umalis sila sabi ko give them 10yrs and they are dead.. eh lang hiya bkit still alive and kickin pa rin. pakiramdam ko ako pa ang mauuna eh---lang hiyang buhay to oh unfair