Doe v Johnson

A Legal Brief

William Castor

Professor Volmar

February 13, 2007

Jane Doe and Infant Doe by her Next Friend John Smith v. Earvin Johnson, Jr

817 F. Supp. 1382 No.5:92:CV:125

Procedural History

  • Plaintiff sues, alleging wrongful transmission of HIV
  • Defendant motions to dismiss
  • Motion granted in part and denied in part

Issues (Counts I,IV, andV)

  • Was the defendant negligent because he did not disclose his HIV status to the plaintiff?
  • Was the defendant fraudulent because he did not disclose his HIV status to the plaintiff?
  • Was the defendant fraudulent because by failing to inform the plaintiff that he lived a lifestyle that put him at risk for acquiring the HIV virus?
  • In addition, at what level of knowledge of the HIV virus should a defendant foresee potential harm to plaintiff such as s/he requires a duty to act as a “reasonably prudent person”, as well as disclose his/her knowledge of the HIV virus to the plaintiff

Facts

  • Plaintiff transmitted HIV to her through consensual sexual activity
  • Plaintiff asked defendant to use a condom and defendant refused to wear a condom
  • Plaintiff and defendant had consensual sexual activity without use of a condom

Rule of Law

  • In order to have a cause of action for negligence, the following must be alleged
  • A legal duty owed by defendant to plaintiff
  • A breach of that duty
  • Causation
  • Resultant damages
  • In order to state a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must allege that
  • The defendant made a false material representation
  • The defendant knew the representation was false, or made it recklessly without knowledge of its truth or falsity
  • The defendant intended that the plaintiff rely upon the representation
  • The plaintiff did, in fact, act in reliance upon the representation
  • The plaintiff was injured
  • Case Law
  • State v Lankford-plaintiff may maintain negligence and fraud claims based on wrongful transmission of venereal diseases
  • Mussivand v. David-knowledge of infection is sufficient to establish a duty for purposes of negligence and fraud
  • M.M.D.vB.L.G- knowledge of symptoms constitutes duty to warn
  • C.A.U. v R.L-knowledge that a prior sexual partner is infected with HIV may be notice of HIV exposure equivalent to symptoms

Reasoning

  • The court finds that the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
  • In regards to foreseeability, the court sees that if the defendant had no actual knowledge of his own infection, had no symptoms of the HIV virus, nor was aware of any prior sex partner who had been diagnosed with HIV, then it was not foreseeable that he would pass the HIV virus to Ms. Doe
  • The court states that legal claims cannot be stated for wrongful transmission of the HIV virus on negligence or fraud theories on the sole basis that a defendant who has engaged in “high risk” behavior or was a member of a “high risk” group

Holding

  • The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss regarding counts I and IV
  • The court dismisses count V regarding cause of action based on “high risk” activity