Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Amused
Again, he had no idea he was positive. As soon as he knew, he informed her.
It's crap like this that makes our tort system broken.
She's out for a payday.
how many times do i have to repeat that you don't need to know? do you really want a tort rule where recklessly avoiding knowing is rewarded?
Rewarded? No. The only person seeking a "reward" is his ex who is irrational.
if there is no tort liability for ignoring warning signs or just refusing to know, then you're rewarding that sort of behavior. are you really arguing that people who don't know and avoid finding out aren't liable for their actions?
She was with him for a year before he supposedly "starting seeing signs." She didn't flee or get tested when these supposed "signs" appeared either. Is she guilty of being "reckless?"
He acted like the vast majority of people do. Dismissing the possibility of HIV until it's too obvious not to.
again, a fact question for the jury. with those facts in issue it won't simply be 'tossed out.'
She has no claim. In fact, no harm, intentional or other wise was done to her. And her fear for her kids is beyond absurd.
emotional trauma is compensable. physical damage isn't always necessary.
