Lawsuit: ‘Defendant Knew Disease ‘Could be Transmitted Through Sexual Intercourse’

Is a person who is infected by a sexual partner with herpes — when that partner knew full well he or she had the virus —  entitled to monetary damages?

That’s the question posed in a lawsuit filed in February in Kitsap County Superior Court.

The plaintiff and defendant had been in a “monogamous, intimate relationship” between 2006 and 2010. At some point prior to their relationship, the defendant got Herpes, the documents say.

“Defendant knew that he had been infected with HSV (Herpes Simplex Virus) for years prior to starting his relationship with plaintiff,” the lawsuit says. “Defendant further knew that the disease could be transmitted through sexual intercourse with another. ”

“Defendant failed to inform plaintiff of the existence of his disease until several months after the parties had engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse,” the lawsuit says.

The plaintiff is asking for an “amount that will fairly compensate (her) for all damages sustained, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, interested calculated at the maximum amount allowable by law, and other relief the court deems just.”

What do you think?

3 thoughts on “Lawsuit: ‘Defendant Knew Disease ‘Could be Transmitted Through Sexual Intercourse’

  1. Of course the infected person should have told and should be liable for giving the disease to another partner.

    That said…Though in this day and age, why anyone would begin a sexual relationship with a new person without first seeing the results of a recent medical checkup for sexually transmitted diseases is surprising.

  2. Your short description doesn’t say whether or not the plaintiff in fact got herpes, but implies she might, so….

    As far as the lawsuit goes, I would think that it would depend on when she got infected (if she is infected). If it was before the male made disclosure, then sure he would be totally liable. However, if she contracted the disease after he had disclosed this information, she made a choice at that point to stay with him and continue their relationship, releasing him from liability.

    But, even at this point, had she contracted the disease (if she did) before disclosure was made, it was at that point that she should have severed the relationship and sued for liability, not carry on for another couple of years. The only reason I can see for suing at this point is to cause embarrassment and publicly humiliate him, the result of a bad break up. Oh, and the money, of course.

  3. “…The only reason I can see for suing at this point is to cause embarrassment and publicly humiliate him…”

    No name was mentioned. Who better to embarrass and publically humiliate than a person who so demonstrated he cares nothing for another person’s well being?

    That said: Another reason is as a warning to others to take more personal responsibility for their own well being …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Please enter the word MILK here: