Can be charged for manslaughter instead I think... which isn't much less worse than murder in most countries (unless you count countries with death penalty).
Is husband liable for wife's STD?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Can be charged for manslaughter instead I think... which isn't much less worse than murder in most countries (unless you count countries with death penalty).
I haven't read beyond the first couple of lines, but on what is stated in them...hell yes!
If people are in relationships and they are well when they enter that relationship, any philandering should be done with protection. Couples that are healthy have an unspoken understanding they will NOT infect each other. How can they if they remain faithful and remaining faithful is an expectation.
Of course, new couples entering into a new relationship do not know if their partner already carries a disease, they can either use precautions for eternity /get tested before they have sex OR they accept that they may catch something that existed before they were together.
BUT there is no excuse for making someone ill who has no way of protecting themselves because they do not know YOU have started placing YOURself at risk.
At the end of the day you do not EXPECT or guard against a car driving through your house and killing or injuring you while you sleep, but you understand while out on the road etc, there is a risk. If some cockhead drives a car through your house you have every right to fucking sue and get him jailed. That goes for women who infect men too.
I think making it a criminal offence is more appropriate than suing though, along the lines of actual bodily harm.
EDIT:
I just noticed she had to have a hysterectomy, he should deffinately be held accountable, this is grevious boddily harm.
Last edited:
let's say he gave her aids from his philandering and she died, that sounds like manslaughter to me.
Drunk drivers who drive into people get done for it!
This is not any different, not remotely.
Last edited:
Sure he can. I recall cases where the arrested HIV positive criminals spitted on the officer and they were charged with attempted murder. Also the guy who knew he had AIDS and was having indiscriminated sex with a bunch of girls...
Please give me some evidence of that assertion. As far as I'm aware, any and all attempts to charge a person because to such acts has been thrown out of court in the USA. They've tried many times to get it into, but have failed every time.
So if you know of a case that's been tried in court, please let me know.
Baron Max
Maybe I worded it wrong. What I meant was that the damage was done between the couple, and not an outsider 3rd party.
Sure it does. I will do only you until death does us apart. That's why infidelity is ground for divorce. Try to tell to any wife that infidality is not a big no-no in a marriage...
OK, here is a test for you: Ask 10 married couples what they think, are they supposed to be faithful in a marriage just by general understanding or not. Report the result back to us.
Nope. By marrying him she THOUGHT he would be faithful until death or the dissolution of the marriage. You have to read on marriages. It might not be LITERALLY in the marriage licence, but it is generally understood that way.
That is usually not a deadly thing. On the other hand mistreating of family founds can be also ground for divorce.
Again, for the 3rd time, possibly dying because of your spouse's infidelity is not included in the general understanding of better or worse....
Hopefully the jury will see through her ruse.
Of course bad analogy:
1. Husband's health is not in danger in this case.
2. He can decide if he wants to be responsible for someone else's child and it is also ground for divorce.
So thanks for bringing up an analogy AGAINST your point.
Again, bad analogy because here we are talking about a debt/harm caused outside of marriage. She is only responsible the way she would be if he bought a car and has to pay it off. If they have finances separate, she is hell not responsible...
It was maybe thrown out of court, but they were charged and that's what I said that they can be. I didn't say succesfully...
Here is a case, not a murder charge but aggrevated sexual assault for having indiscriminated sex when HIV positive:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/12/jury_finds_bc_man_guilty_of_sp.php
Max, here you go, this is your lucky day!!
http://www.aegis.org/news/nyt/2005/NYT050803.html
Guy with AIDS got 13 years for spitting on officers:
"Robert Murray, 32, but he abruptly accepted a plea deal, in which he agreed to admit his guilt in five counts of second-degree attempted murder, in exchange for a 13-year prison sentence."
Google is your friend, use it for God's sake!
Arresting officer said:""He spit in my face, eyes and mouth and then said, 'I have H.I.V., and I hope you get it,"' she said. "It was absolutely horrible. Your whole future flashes before your eyes.""
http://www.aegis.org/news/nyt/2005/NYT050803.html
Guy with AIDS got 13 years for spitting on officers:
"Robert Murray, 32, but he abruptly accepted a plea deal, in which he agreed to admit his guilt in five counts of second-degree attempted murder, in exchange for a 13-year prison sentence."
Google is your friend, use it for God's sake!
Arresting officer said:""He spit in my face, eyes and mouth and then said, 'I have H.I.V., and I hope you get it,"' she said. "It was absolutely horrible. Your whole future flashes before your eyes.""
If google is such a friend of yours, perhaps you should read it more carefully! The man attacked several people ....attacked ....attempted to do bodily harm ...attempted to kill them. He wasn't going to trial because of the spitting or the AIDS, he was going to trial for attacking, physically attacking, several people. The AIDS didn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with it.
Read the article carefully ...and be careful of making accusations without fully investigating the incidents. We are, after all, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Google ain't your friend, my freind, unless you read carefully!
Baron Max
Baron, I beg you: Please don't challenge me, because so far I have ALWAYS lived up to your challendges and at the end you looked silly. It is you who has the problem with reading comprehension, here is the evidence:
"The trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan stemmed from charges that Mr. Murray spit saliva and blood into the faces of four police detectives trying to process him at the 25th Precinct station house in Harlem after he was arrested on April 8, 2003, on charges of promoting prostitution."
So obviously the attack part was the spitting of saliva and blood.
There you go my friend, have a nice weekend!
"The trial in State Supreme Court in Manhattan stemmed from charges that Mr. Murray spit saliva and blood into the faces of four police detectives trying to process him at the 25th Precinct station house in Harlem after he was arrested on April 8, 2003, on charges of promoting prostitution."
So obviously the attack part was the spitting of saliva and blood.
There you go my friend, have a nice weekend!
that's not what your link said ....read it again and don't just read the parts that you like or want, read the whole fuckin' thing.
Baron Max
But this is not a case about divorce. Here the wife is suing the husband in a case that is separate from their pending divorce.
The results would be irrelevant in this case. This case would apply whether or not she divorced him. Infidelity is grounds for divorce, but it is not grounds for extra money (beyond the half she’s entitled to in a divorce) unless she has a pre-nup that specifies that. She is suing for extra money here.
I agree. The courts do consider infidelity in a divorce, although “irreconcilable differences” is sufficient. But this is not a case about divorce. Presumably she wants half the assets in her divorce. And she wants more money in this separate case.
Infidelity is not an issue in this case, since it not about divorce, and infidelity is legal. The only question in this case is whether he was negligent. The only way he could be negligent is if he knew he had contracted an STD and it is reasonable for him to expect that she would have a major health problem if she got it. He could not be negligent by simply being unfaithful; if that were the case then infidelity would be illegal. Suppose he came home with the common cold, gave it to her, and she had some bad gene that caused the cold to morph into a deadly illness that she barely survives. He would not be negligent; she took the risk of such illnesses by marrying him. But if he came home HIV+ and knew it, he could reasonably expect to be putting her life at risk.
It is grounds for divorce (anything is), but he does not get to decide whether he’s responsible. Either spouse is responsible for any children produced, whether or not by infidelity.
The harm in this case was caused while they were married and not separated. The analogy holds. As long as he was not negligent, he should not be held liable for harm he caused her. She accepted that risk in full when she signed the marriage license.
We are not really improving here...
And rightfully so. There was harm done to her, she wants compensation...
You could have been right if we were in the 60s. But in this age anybody who fucks should consider all kind of nasty STDs...
You are having a bad day with analogies. The difference is that there are shit happening in life, cathcing a cold is like that. But you don't catch an STD accidentally. You have to fuck for it. In other words, he had to do ACTIVELY something wrong. THAT is the difference...
OK, so we can close the argument, because HE WAS negligent by fucking another woman. End of story...
And rightfully so. There was harm done to her, she wants compensation...
You could have been right if we were in the 60s. But in this age anybody who fucks should consider all kind of nasty STDs...
You are having a bad day with analogies. The difference is that there are shit happening in life, cathcing a cold is like that. But you don't catch an STD accidentally. You have to fuck for it. In other words, he had to do ACTIVELY something wrong. THAT is the difference...
OK, so we can close the argument, because HE WAS negligent by fucking another woman. End of story...
Man, give it up. It takes a man to acknowledge that he lost. You will never, ever win an argument against me. Ever. Just a fair warning, so you don't waste your time...
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/940406/posts
"JOHN CARL Marquez, 36, was convicted of “placing bodily fluid upon a government employee,” a felony that can carry a life sentence because of the possibility of transmitting a potentially deadly disease."
Oh, my god, you idiot!! That's just another fuckin' forum with all kinds of idiots posting their bullshit. There's nothing legal about any of that!!!
Don't you have a real website or do you just play around with sensationalist bullshit sites like that one???
Baron Max
"Fucking another woman", or ten of them, is legal in the US. It's legal for him to get an STD from another woman. It may be negligent for him to knowingly pass it on to his wife. Had he told her about the STD before she got it, she'd have no legal standing in this case. Yours is just wishful thinking.
Saying you, who at age 70 still doesn't know how to google something? That post was quoted from the MSNBC news website that reported something by the Associated Press.
Now be a good boy and learn to use google. PLEASE!!!
So what's your point? Obviously he DIDN't tell the wife, thus the case....
By the way neglience exists in this case even if he didn't know. That is the definition of neglience. If your car's tires are too old and you get a flat tire and kill somebody, you are neglient, because you should keep your car maintained... It doesn't matter if you knew or didn't know about the condition of the tires...
Here is the Slow Man's Guide (dedicated to Baron) how to use a searchengine:
1. Go to the website (Google, Yahoo).
2. Type in relevant words, in this case "hiv positive spitting"
3. Read the results.
4. In case you didn't get what you were looking for, either change the searchengine or change the search words.
Here is one last KO, and I am done with you, becaise you are a little baby, not able to acknowledge when your ass is kicked 3 times in a row now:
http://www.mydjconnection.com/articles/2005/11/23/community/news2.txt'
"FARMINGTON - An HIV-positive man is facing some serious charges after spitting on a deputy who was trying to arrest him.
Kenneth Webb, 30, faces numerous felony charges and is being held in the county jail on a $300,000 surety bond."
By the way the guy was both HIV and Hepatitis C positive.
1. Go to the website (Google, Yahoo).
2. Type in relevant words, in this case "hiv positive spitting"
3. Read the results.
4. In case you didn't get what you were looking for, either change the searchengine or change the search words.
Here is one last KO, and I am done with you, becaise you are a little baby, not able to acknowledge when your ass is kicked 3 times in a row now:
http://www.mydjconnection.com/articles/2005/11/23/community/news2.txt'
"FARMINGTON - An HIV-positive man is facing some serious charges after spitting on a deputy who was trying to arrest him.
Kenneth Webb, 30, faces numerous felony charges and is being held in the county jail on a $300,000 surety bond."
By the way the guy was both HIV and Hepatitis C positive.