Well, shoot.
The story it’s pulled from is (unsurprisingly) interesting. Last week, a local woman won a total of $900,000 in a lawsuit against a man who had given her herpes in 2010 after meeting on an online dating website. While it sounds like an unlikely situation, apparently these lawsuits aren’t uncommon, but only if the person didn’t know about their partner’s disease before they had sex.
At the end of the trial, the woman was 25 percent guilty, while the man (whose occupation as a dentist somehow made him more blamable) was left with the remaining 75 percent by the jury, guilty of battery.
Moral of the story: Never hide herpes. Bumper stickers coming soon.
“… who’s occupation as a dentist…” should be “whose”
uh, the moral of the story is never claim you have herpes. It was his admittance after the fact that convinced the Jury. If he had just shut up about the whole thing, he’d be clear.
the herpes pandemic keeps sweeping across portland. bunch of sex crazed hipsters. just anecdotal hearsay, i don’t have any official statistics. but the prevalent, casual polygamist attitude obviously contributes to the virus’ spread. at least it isn’t deadly and can be somewhat treated. the treatment however gives people a false sense of security that they won’t infect others. it’s a game of russian roulette.
Alex, the “guilt” language is appropriate for a criminal trial, while this was a civil trial. The jury found both parties to be negligent in some way, and they decided the negligence of the plaintiff was 25% the cause of her damages, while the negligence of the defendant was 75%.
You also say the woman won $900K. First of all, I wouldn’t say “won.” The number is simply what the jury agreed her proven damages were. Second, the reason the jury is asked to apportion fault is to split damages, so she actually “won” 75% of 900K (thus the defendant isn’t responsible for paying the 25% of damages she caused herself).
The More You Know, and all that.
and the stigma continues