Is husband liable for wife's STD?

The article implies that they are still married to each other, in which case any money she might win in a judgment against him comes jointly out of their pockets and jointly back into their pockets, so it's a net zero to both of them.
 
Prince_James said:
It'd have to be established he purposefully infected her.
Click to expand...

yeah, I was thinking of that, but no, eventually I would say he is liable even if he didn't know of his condition.

The argument is rather simple: if he hadn't cheated on her, he wouldn't have got the STD.

By the way they are in the process of separation so if she sue, she gets the money out of his pocket...
 
One cannot be held accountable for something one does not know. Moreover, having sex with another person does not equate to getting an STD purposefully.
 
Chances are she was pissed over his infidelity and needed a way to get back at him.
 
Prince James said:

One cannot be held accountable for something one does not know. Moreover, having sex with another person does not equate to getting an STD purposefully.
Click to expand...

What about negligence? Can, or should, one be held accountable for negligence?
 
Tiassa:

Neglience requires one to have a reasonable cause for belief that the activity is dangerous. STD transmission is not high enough to make it reasonable to think one has it, barring the symptoms showing.
 
46%? 75%?

Neglience requires one to have a reasonable cause for belief that the activity is dangerous. STD transmission is not high enough to make it reasonable to think one has it, barring the symptoms showing.
Click to expand...

Is 46% (see Univ. of Iowa) high enough? How about 50-75% (see Order of St. Francis)? The CDC notes, "Because HPV is so common but usually invisible, the only sure ways to prevent it are not to have sex, or to have sex with only one uninfected person, who is only having sex with you."

According to the topic article, "Defense attorney Mark B. Connely argued during this month's jury trial that his client did not negligently infect his ex-wife and Smith did not know he had the virus." He does not seem to be arguing that his client did not contract and transmit the virus.
 
HPV, whilst technically an STD, is not considered to be as such. Yes, it has been found to be a catalyst for cervical cancer, but it is aside from that, is mostly harmless. The majority of the strains cause warts - and not of the genital variety.
 
Prince James said:

HPV, whilst technically an STD, is not considered to be as such.
Click to expand...

And yet the court is hearing the case. Rather, according to your point, I would wonder why the case isn't thrown out of court for lack of merit.
 
Prince_James said:
Tiassa:

Neglience requires one to have a reasonable cause for belief that the activity is dangerous. STD transmission is not high enough to make it reasonable to think one has it, barring the symptoms showing.
Click to expand...
I would think having the unprotected sex which caused him to get the STD is pretty negligent, don't you think?

And STD transmissions is quite high. Some aren't as dangerous as others if treated promptly, and others can prove to be deadly or life altering. But the fact is he took the risk knowingly.

Ignorance of his having the STD is not an excuse. After all, having unprotected sex increases your chances of contracting an STD and he did that knowingly and I doubt he could get away with saying he was not aware that unprotected sex was not dangerous.

As to the damage she suffered, she had to have a hysterectomy due to the STD she contracted from him. I'd say she has reason to be pissed and to sue.
 
Bells said:
As to the damage she suffered, she had to have a hysterectomy due to the STD she contracted from him. I'd say she has reason to be pissed and to sue.
Click to expand...
But sue for what? If he gave an STD to someone else while they are married, the law is clear that she'd be liable for half of any judgment against him. In a civil case, she's just as liable as him for his actions. She agreed to that when she married him. Now it seems she wants to renege on that contract.
 
Prince_James said:
One cannot be held accountable for something one does not know. Moreover, having sex with another person does not equate to getting an STD purposefully.
Click to expand...

It is not the purposeful part that makes him suable, but his carelessness.

Obviously you can not argue against this: had he been faithful, she wouldn't have ended up with an STD.

Let's take it a step further. What if that STD is AIDS or Hepatitis C, and she ends up dead because of his unfaithfulness??? He could be charged with murder...
 
zanket said:
In a civil case, she's just as liable as him for his actions.
Click to expand...

Not if the actions cause trouble/damage for HER.

She agreed to that when she married him.
Click to expand...

Man, so wrong, it is sad. She agreed to be faithful to him for the rest of her life and SO DID HE!!!!!

So he broke the marriage contract and as a result she got STD. Case closed...

I thought it was a rather simple case....
 
Syzygys said:
Let's take it a step further. What if that STD is AIDS or Hepatitis C, and she ends up dead because of his unfaithfulness??? He could be charged with murder...
Click to expand...

No, he can't be charged with murder! Certainly not in the USA.

Where are you from that the law can charge them with murder??? I think it should be that way in the USA, but it ain't yet.

Baron Max
 
Syzygys said:
Not if the actions cause trouble/damage for HER.
Click to expand...
Never heard of that law. If there were such a law, people would not be responsible for debts incurred by their spouses. But they are liable for those debts, no matter how much trouble/damage they cause.

She agreed to be faithful to him for the rest of her life and SO DID HE!!!!!
Click to expand...
The contract she signed has nothing to say about fidelity; that's what pre-nups are for. Unless she has one, he is not legally obligated to be faithful. The contract I'm talking about is for the marriage license.

I thought it was a rather simple case....
Click to expand...
Legally speaking, it is simple: she's co-responsible for her STD. By marrying him, she volunteered to take the risk of him making her life better or worse. You don't see people complain when their spouse makes them rich. Then they shouldn't complain when they get an STD either. This woman wanted half of the potential upside of marriage, but now wants to make him fully responsible for the downside. Hopefully the jury will see through her ruse.

What do you think about when the wife has a baby due to an affair? Do you agree or disagree that the husband is responsible for the child? The contract he signed makes him co-responsible. And the wife is co-responsible for any kid the husband fathers.
 
after reading the story from the link my conclusion is the same as before.
in short the woman has to prove whether she caught the virus on one of her extra marital affairs.

this is a fine example of keeping your mouth shut.
 
wee, I'm a first year law student and this is the kind of stuff we get :)

In my opinion I think he would be held liable. Reason is that (at least in the UK where I study) the court would most likely hold it to be forseeable to catch an STD as a result of unprotected sex these days. As such he would be accountable for negligence. It must however be proven for this purpose that it caused her some damage/harm to be awarded compensation.

I find it funny however that she decides to sue him rather than divorce him... well well it's a strange world we live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top