• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Oregon woman wins $900,000 in civil case, claimed date intentionally gave her herpes

Status
Not open for further replies.

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/06/herpes_verdict_in_portland_wom.html

The 49-year-old Beaverton divorcee was impressed when she met a 69-year-old Southeast Portland man on the Internet dating website eHarmony.

He seemed well-educated, charming and kind. They had a lot in common, including that she was a dental hygienist and he was a retired dentist. On the fourth date -- an evening that included hors d'oeuvres, wine and a few puffs of pot -- the two had sex.

The woman was looking for a husband. Instead, she ended up with genital herpes.

After enduring repeated painful outbreaks of the disease and spiraling into clinical depression, she filed a lawsuit. Last week after a four-day trial, a Multnomah County jury awarded her nearly every dollar she was asking for: $900,000 for her pain and suffering.

It was the first time a case of one person suing another for intentionally transmitting herpes went to trial in Oregon, said the attorneys who tried and researched the case.


Jurors were asked to ponder fundamental questions about dating and sex in today's times: Was the man obligated to tell his date that he had genital herpes before they had unprotected sex? Did he truly not know that he was contagious even when he wasn't experiencing lesions? And how much should a person be compensated for a disease, albeit incurable, that affects roughly 1 in 6 adults?

The jury deliberated for two hours before reaching a verdict: The man was 75 percent negligent, while the woman carried 25 percent of the blame. Two jurors, however, dissented, believing the man was entirely at fault.

Jurors also found that the retired dentist committed battery by intentionally engaging in an activity that harmed the woman.

Several jurors said they found the man's behavior reprehensible and that the dental hygienist's suffering was real.

"We all felt he should have told her -- he had the responsibility to tell her," said juror Noah Brimhall.


Difficult to prove

Lawsuits like this are rare because it's difficult to prove a "preponderance of the evidence" -- in other words, that someone "more likely than not" intentionally infected another. In 1996, however, a 32-year-old woman filed suit against her 38-year-old former Portland boyfriend, claiming he infected her with genital herpes after making a conscious decision not to tell her of his health status. He settled the case for $550,000.

Criminal charges also are rare. Some states specifically outlaw the intentional spread of any sexually transmitted diseases. Others criminalize only the intentional spreading of HIV because of its serious, life-threatening nature. Oregon does neither, but prosecutors can charge defendants under existing statutes, such as the state's assault law.

In the case of the retired dentist, the Washington County district attorney's office declined to prosecute, figuring it would not be able to prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- a higher standard than in a civil suit.

During last week's trial, the woman's attorney, Randall Vogt, said his client had received a clean bill of health in January 2010 and then had sex with the retired dentist for one time on May 25, 2010. Within 11 days, she had a herpes outbreak -- documented by her complaints to a doctor, he said.

The woman, who filed the case under a pseudonym, testified that she asked her date to wear a condom and he said OK, but the next thing she knew he wasn't wearing a condom and it was too late. Afterward, as they were lying in bed and talking about the chemistry between them, she said he broke the news to her: He had herpes. She kicked him out of her house.

Her outbreaks, she said, have been repeated and painful. She took anti-viral medication, but it caused large amounts of her hair to fall out. She suffered from anxiety and depression, and the drugs she took for that caused her weight to balloon by 30 pounds.

Vogt praised his client as a "heroine" for standing up to hold a "dangerous" man responsible.

"Ninety-nine percent of the people who find themselves in (her) situation simply wring their hands and do nothing," Vogt said. "They know if they file a lawsuit, it's going to be hotly contested. It's going to be embarrassing. It's going to be massively unpleasant."

Vogt asked jurors to establish a standard by sending a message that in a "civilized society" sex partners must tell one another if they have an STD, and that relationships must not "be governed by the law of the jungle."

Defense attorney Shawn Lillegren tried to chip away at the woman's credibility by arguing that she was lying about her sexual history and may have had sex with other men who gave her the disease.

Dentist's defense

The retired dentist took the stand to say that despite the woman's contention that he should have known he could be contagious at all times, especially given his background as a dentist, he truly didn't know. He testified that he told her that he had herpes not out of guilt, as she contended, but because he liked her and wanted her to know there might be times when he had an outbreak and he would have to refrain from sex.

His attorney argued that the woman was careless -- that she should have demanded he wear a condom because without one "everyone knows you're at risk for an STD."

"Grow up. Come on. You're an adult. He's an adult. They had sex," Lillegren said. "The point is she is not some little innocent victim."

Lillegren also painted the woman as a money-hungry. "Go for a million -- that's plaintiff's message," Lillegren said. "God bless America. Go for it. Got some coffee to spill on me?"


After Judge David Rees read the jury's verdict, the woman stood up and looked as if she were straining to hold back tears. As jurors filed out of the courtroom, she held their gaze and mouthed words of gratitude as they passed.
 
The woman, who filed the case under a pseudonym, testified that she asked her date to wear a condom and he said OK, but the next thing she knew he wasn't wearing a condom and it was too late. Afterward, as they were lying in bed and talking about the chemistry between them, she said he broke the news to her: He had herpes. She kicked him out of her house.

Fuck that guy.
 

Wool

Member
I'm sure people will say that GAF is just misogynistic, but if she decided to have casual sex with a man she met online on the first date, she is running the risk of getting an STD. Obviously it's his fault more than hers and he sounds like an asshole, but I don't know that it warrants almost a million dollars compensation. Who's going to be suffering from depression now?
 

Bleepey

Member
I can't feel sorry for the dude. I thought condoms can help, but they are not great. Like condoms are great for preventing HIV transmission but shit for herpes.
 
I'm okay with this.

People that know they have STDs should not have sex with someone else without sharing that knowledge beforehand. I don't care if she was irresponsible here, he is more of an asshole than she is an idiot, thus she should win this suit.
 

Derrick01

Banned
And she intentionally fucked someone without knowing whether or not he had herpes. This is stupid.

I'm sure a lot of people do that, like the younger people who go out to clubs to pick people up. It's a dangerous game to play IMO. Besides I doubt most would admit to having anything if they're out to get laid.
 
condoms reduce risk of transmission of herpes by about one third if used correctly and consistently. regardless, the guy said he would wear one and then lied. he deserved to lose.

Yeah, this was a pretty big piece of the story that isn't bolded.

The woman, who filed the case under a pseudonym, testified that she asked her date to wear a condom and he said OK, but the next thing she knew he wasn't wearing a condom and it was too late. Afterward, as they were lying in bed and talking about the chemistry between them, she said he broke the news to her: He had herpes. She kicked him out of her house.

Fuck this guy.
 
Not really, but it shows she wasn't all that concerned with safe sex.

Most likely.

And all this hate for the guy saying he'd wear a condom and then taking it off. What? Is there some sort of rule where once you stick it in you can't stop until you're done? She could have told the guy to stop at any time.
 

SUPREME1

Banned
"Girl, I like you a lot... so I have something to tell you. I... I have something that I will give you if we go all the way..."


"What do you mean? What would you give me if we went all the way?"


"This rock hard cock, baby!"
 
Kiss my ass on 900k. She ALSO allowed unprotected sex....why does that not factor in? cleary this was a money hunt.


Not that the dude does not deserve to suffer...but taking his life savings? wow

America...if you can't do, sue.
 

Gaborn

Member
I'm sure people will say that GAF is just misogynistic, but if she decided to have casual sex with a man she met online on the first date, she is running the risk of getting an STD. Obviously it's his fault more than hers and he sounds like an asshole, but I don't know that it warrants almost a million dollars compensation. Who's going to be suffering from depression now?

Honestly, it's borderline rape to me. She asked him to wear a condom, he was, and then apparently he wasn't. He deliberately misled her about wearing protection in order to have sex. That's indefensible even ASIDE from the herpes. To me the herpes is completely secondary to what apparently happened.
 
Honestly, it's borderline rape to me. She asked him to wear a condom, he was, and then apparently he wasn't. He deliberately misled her about wearing protection in order to have sex. That's indefensible even ASIDE from the herpes. To me the herpes is completely secondary to what apparently happened.

wait...watch how you toss out that word....she did not tell him to stop.
 

zoku88

Member
Lillegreen is the attorney?

I already hate him:

Lillegren also painted the woman as a money-hungry. "Go for a million -- that's plaintiff's message," Lillegren said. "God bless America. Go for it. Got some coffee to spill on me?"

Get out of here with that crap.
 

sangreal

Member
Honestly, it's borderline rape to me. She asked him to wear a condom, he was, and then apparently he wasn't. He deliberately misled her about wearing protection in order to have sex. That's indefensible even ASIDE from the herpes. To me the herpes is completely secondary to what apparently happened.

Is the man Julian Assange?
 
The woman, who filed the case under a pseudonym, testified that she asked her date to wear a condom and he said OK, but the next thing she knew he wasn't wearing a condom and it was too late. Afterward, as they were lying in bed and talking about the chemistry between them, she said he broke the news to her: He had herpes. She kicked him out of her house.

Fuck that guy.

Man, that passage really needs to be bolded, highlighted, and underlined in the OP. It's the most important part
 

Ducarmel

Member
IMO I don't care about the civil suit but wished he was charged criminally if its true he did not tell her he had an std.

Regardless if they used a condom or not, omitting to tell somebody you have an std is messed up.
 

Gaborn

Member
The guy is an asshole and a liar...but not a rapist.

Like I said, borderline rape. If someone sets a condition for sex and you agree to it and then you don't follow through it SHOULD be considered non-consensual sex. Because the consent was conditional.


Is the man Julian Assange?

The Assange case is a little different. The woman apparently didn't consider it rape and didn't want to press charges, then she did, then they didn't want to prosecute and now they do... that's a lot more of a fucked up and muddied situation that is difficult to cut through the noise.
 
Okay, I have to retract my "Beaverton bein' Beaverton!" comment now that I've read the whole article. Excuse me while I wash all this egg off my face.
 

KHarvey16

Member
The guy is an asshole and a liar...but not a rapist.

Permission was granted upon the condition he wore a condom. Once that condition was no longer fulfilled there ceases to be permission. Add to that he explicitly pursued sex without a condom despite her request while knowing he had herpes and this is an absolutely reasonable jury decision. I would not disagree with an attempt to bring criminal charges in the slightest.
 
I'm sure people will say that GAF is just misogynistic, but if she decided to have casual sex with a man she met online on the first date, she is running the risk of getting an STD. Obviously it's his fault more than hers and he sounds like an asshole, but I don't know that it warrants almost a million dollars compensation. Who's going to be suffering from depression now?
4th date, and why the fuck does it matter which date she chooses to start fucking anyway? She's an adult.

Having sex with anyone, anywhere, no matter how you met, how long you have been together, and how much you think you trust each other will come with the risk of getting an STD. She asked him to use protection and trusted that he would be open and honest. What else could she have done?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom