Doe v. Roe
| Decision Date | 09 March 1993 |
| Citation | 598 N.Y.S.2d 678,157 Misc.2d 690 |
| Parties | John DOE, Plaintiff, v. Mary ROE, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Justice Court |
John Doe, pro se.
Kevin Russo, Garnerville, for defendant.
Plaintiff is suing the defendant alleging that the defendant caused him bodily injury by infecting him with Chlamydia, which is a sexually transmitted disease. He claims damages for medical treatment, mental anguish, and "loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life," totalling $2,000, the jurisdictional limit in the Small Claims part.
Defendant counterclaims for the same amount claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon threatening and abusive phone calls the plaintiff allegedly made to the defendant in December 1991, and the alleged vandalizing of the defendant's car that took place during the same time period.
In the fall of 1988, the plaintiff and the defendant began an intimate relationship which lasted to approximately November 1991. Plaintiff testified that during this time he engaged in sexual activity only with the defendant. He did not use a condom during this relationship since the defendant utilized other forms of birth control.
Plaintiff testified that he received a call from the defendant the Sunday of the 1991 Thanksgiving weekend advising him that she had a medical problem, and that he should seek an examination. The very next day the plaintiff visited his physician and was diagnosed as having Chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease. He was put on a 10 day regimen of antibiotics. His physician advised if plaintiff observed no other signs, he would be considered cured. He incurred a doctor bill of $52 and a prescription bill of approximately $13.
The plaintiff testified on cross-examination that while he engaged in sex before the relationship with defendant began, he always used a condom. The defendant testified that she called the plaintiff as soon as she found out about this problem, and that she never engaged in sex with anyone else during their relationship. The defendant further testified regarding her counterclaim about harassing and abusive phone calls and letters which began after the plaintiff was diagnosed. Defendant submitted photographic evidence of obscenities painted on her car. A number of defendant's friends testified in support stating that the plaintiff repeatedly called and harassed them about the defendant. Although none of them saw the plaintiff deface the defendant's vehicle, one witness did observe the plaintiff near the location of defendant's car in the middle of the night that the defacement occurred. 1
New York permits a cause of action for what is commonly called a prima facie tort, Annotation, 16 ALR 3rd 1191. Restatement of Torts 2nd, at Section 870, provides in part that this liability may be imposed although the actor's conduct does not come within the traditional category of tort liability. The elements of recovery under prima facie tort are: (1) the infliction of intentional harm; (2) solely to injure plaintiff without any excuse or justification; (3) resulting in special economic damage which must be specifically pleaded The only New York case reported on the issue of transmission of a venereal disease is an 1865 case in which an appellate court upheld a judgment for a father based upon the transmission of a venereal disease to his daughter, White v. Nellis, 31 N.Y. 405. Many jurisdictions used to reject these types of cases based upon a number of reasons such as the right to privacy and anti-heart balm statutes. However, recently a number of jurisdictions have recognized a cause of action for the tortious communication of a venereal disease on the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and deceit, misrepresentation and negligence, see, Annotation, 40 ALR 4th 1089. A Minnesota appellate court, in a 1988 case reported at R.A.P. v. B.J.P., 428 N.W.2d 103, found that people who know they have genital herpes have a legal duty to prevent its spread, and that includes, at a minimum, the duty to inform potential sex partners. The Court affirmed a prima facie case for negligence and for fraud.
and (4) by an act or series of acts that would otherwise be unlawful, 7A Warren's New York Negligence, Mental Suffering, § 3.03, at 457.
Based upon the foregoing authorities, this Court holds that New York recognizes a cause of action for intentional or negligent communication of a venereal disease under either (1) the general prima facie tort theory; or (2) an action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; or (3) fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
That being said, this Court, after examining the testimony and the proof submitted, dismisses plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm, finding that there is insufficient proof that the defendant knew of her condition and intentionally transmitted same to the plaintiff. There is no proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant transmitted this disease to the plaintiff. In fact, there is no more proof that the defendant transmitted this disease to the plaintiff than there is proof that the plaintiff transmitted it to the defendant.
Regarding the issue of negligence, the cases have also held that when a special relationship exists between the parties, one of the parties can be held negligent by not disclosing to the other party that one was infected with a sexually transmitted disease or by failing to take precautions, such as the use of a condom, to prevent transmission of the disease. A California court recently held an individual negligent where the evidence showed that the defendant knew he had herpes, that it could be transmitted by sexual conduct, and did not take the appropriate actions to prevent its transmission. The Court also held that the right of privacy is outweighed by the State's strong interest in preventing spread of serious illnesses. The right of privacy should not insulate a defendant who has negligently or deliberately infected someone with a venereal disease. See Doe v. Roe, 218 Cal.App.3d 1538, 267 Cal.Rptr. 564.
In the case at bar, if there were proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knew she had Chlamydia when she engaged in sexual relations with the plaintiff, the Court might be persuaded to uphold plaintiff's cause of action in negligence. 2
Credible testimony indicates that the defendant notified the plaintiff as soon as she knew she had a problem, following a physical examination, which was after the last time they had sexual relations. It is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tischler v. Dimenna
...[venereal disease]; Maharam v. Maharam, 123 A.D.2d 165, 170-71, 510 N.Y.S.2d 104 [1st Dept. 1986] [genital herpes]; Doe v. Roe, 157 Misc.2d 690, 598 N.Y.S.2d 678, 680 [Just. Ct. Rockland County 1993] [chlamydia]; Annotation, Tortious Transmission of Venereal Disease, 40 ALR 4th 1089; Porter......
-
Haybeck v. Prodigy Services Co.
...of action [against husband] for wrongful transmission of genital herpes on theories of either fraud or negligence") and Doe v. Roe, 157 Misc.2d 690, 598 N.Y.S.2d 678 (Justice Ct.1993) (explaining that "New York recognizes a cause of action for intentional or negligent communication of a ven......
-
Anonymous v. Simon
...1. Plaintiff's DNA Probe and serologic (antibody) test is incorporated via reference in the FAC. 2. The court recognizes that Doe v. Roe, 598 N.Y.S.2d 678 (N.Y. Justice Ct. 1993), applied the assumption of risk doctrine to unprotected sex. Id. at 681 ("A person assumes the risk where he vol......
-
Silver v. Levittown Union Free School Dist.
...815; Maharam v. Maharam, 123 A.D.2d 165, 510 N.Y.S.2d 104; Tischler v. Dimenna, 160 Misc.2d 525, 609 N.Y.S.2d 1002; Doe v. Roe, 157 Misc.2d 690, 598 N.Y.S.2d 678; Petri v. Bank of N.Y., 153 Misc.2d 426, 582 N.Y.S.2d 608). As in any negligence action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the ......