{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Doe v Roe - transmit the disease unless there was a visible...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CASE: Doe v. Roe Court of Appeal of California 267 Cal. Rptr. 564 (Ct. App. 1990) Pg. 15 Justice Smith Facts a. Richard Roe/Defendant/Appellant/ Boyfriend Jane Doe/Plaintiff/girlfriend/ b. Richard Roe failed to disclose to Jane Doe that he had the herpes virus prior to sexual intercourse. Doe had asked Roe if he had any STD’s prior to any sexual activity. They had intercourse. Jane became infected with herpes. Unlike Roe, defendant suffered greatly from the disease. c. (1) C/A: negligent transmittal of herpes. Procedural History: a. lower court found the defendant liable for negligent transmittal of herpes to the plaintiff b. $150,000 in damages ($200,000 – 25% due to contributory negligence on her part) c. Defendant Richard Roe appeals b/c lack of duty as a matter of law in 1985. He didn’t think he could
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: transmit the disease unless there was a visible lesions. Issues: a. substantive issue: (i)Foreseeability (ii)because the asymptomatic transmittal of herpes was foreseeable, defendant was negligent. b. procedural issue: he is claiming that he did not know that he could asymptomatically transmit the disease and that there was no knowing that in 1984. Disposition: Affirmed Holding: States policy in preventing the spread of STDs is great and there was knowledge available for the defendant to have learned prior to intercourse. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: Foreseeable harm. Reasoning: Because there was available knowledge and foreseeable harm, the defendant is liable by negligence. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: Additional Comments/Personal Impressions:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online