The California Supreme Court said that partners must inform their spouse about their risky sexual lifestyle and possible exposure to AIDS.
This came down as the court ruling in San Francisco when the case of a divorced husband and wife came to the court. The wife accused the ex-husband of transmitting AIDS to her. Now both the partners suffer from AIDS. Hence the court decided that the spouse or partner of a person who has been infected with AIDS can be sued for failing to disclose that he/she was suffering from AIDS.
The partner can do so if either of them has good reason and proof to believe that he or she had the disease prior to the marriage. This decision was taken to prevent the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases to the innocent people. The couple John B and Bridget B each accuses the other of infecting each other with AIDS. It is a civil lawsuit in which Bridget accuses John and tells that he had failed to disclose before their marriage in 2000 that he had numerous sexual relationships with men and therefore knew or should have known he had HIV.
According to the state law it is a punishable crime to knowingly infect another person with AIDS. The person or the culprit can be sentenced to up to eight years of imprisonment. Now this is being extended from partners who know they have AIDS to those who reasonably should have known they were infected. This ruling on liability was made by a four-member majority of the court.
But Justice Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno disagreed with the ruling and said that it would result in vengeance lawsuits being filed against the former sexual partners to harass them. In the case of Bridget B.'s lawsuit nothing was proved and hence the court sent the case back to Los Angeles Superior Court for evidence gathering.
But Justice Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno disagreed with the ruling and said that it would result in vengeance lawsuits being filed against the former sexual partners to harass them. In the case of Bridget B.'s lawsuit nothing was proved and hence the court sent the case back to Los Angeles Superior Court for evidence gathering.
Recommended Reading
Latest Medico Legal News
The Delhi High court recently stated that it is not mandatory to conduct personal examination of the doctor who prepared Medico-legal cases (MLC).
The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GoI to examine means to improve the conditions of persons suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
The Orissa High Court has ordered the state government to ascertain as to whether every person practicing the medical profession has valid qualification.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld a prohibition on pro-life protests and prayers inside a 328-foot radius outside of any abortion clinic in Northern Ireland.
The court said the state cannot restrain the right to health and right to life to its domiciles only. This right is available to a person and not restricted to a citizen.
