I vaguely remember law school hypos involving intentional infliction of AIDS from Torts class. But this is no hypo. An Oregon woman contracted herpes from a dentist who didn’t want to wear a condom, so she sued. A jury found the dentist — who informed the plaintiff he had herpes after the act — 75% liable and awarded $900,000 for a rash of consequences she experienced. (via Jezebel).

  • That wasn’t a hypothetical. That was a real case from Idaho, but it’s always funny to see this kinds of things come up anyhow.

    • Do you have a link to the case? We should start collecting cases so we can help create the Intentional Infliction of Disease tort.

      • A quick google does not reveal the case from my law school text but does unveil the Minnesota case RW v. TF, 528 NW 2d 869, which appears to stand for the proposition that infliction of herpes is an intentional tort.

  • Catherine Tucker

    “An Oregon woman contracted herpes from a dentist who didn’t want to wear a condom, so she sued.”

    Obviously some new dental procedure that my dentist doesn’t perform.

    Thanks for posting this Sam. It is interesting to me because in the area of egg, sperm and embryo donation there is a real potential for the transmission of disease.

  • shg

    Defense counsel’s argument, comparing the claim to the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, and ridiculing the plaintiff by saying she’s a big girl and knew that sex involved a risk of STDs, was not as good an idea as he thought.

    But, he had a great firm logo.

    • For having nearly 100 trials under his belt, one wonders at his decision to try to cast the plaintiff as a silly, money-hungry “loose woman.”

      Also, I don’t think this counts as a logo. It’s more stylized text.

      • shg

        Are you kidding? Line. Three dots. The man has a v-card, for crying out loud. He’s got to be good.

        • If it were the line alone, I’d say no way. But you’re right, the three dots clearly throw it into the logo category.

  • Lisa

    I was a juror in the case, and the Plantiff had alot better concrete evidence than the Defendant. The Defendant first of all stated he didnt need to wear a condom and told after intercourse that he had Herpes?? That was a red flag to begin with as a juror. And he also lied about his age on the dating website that they met on. So for the defense of the Defense lawyer…he really didn’t have much to defend. It was a case of over confidence with a STD, and trusting partner.