Liability for Infecting Others

[Renegade]

A common occurrence is that we infect each other. Most times this is simply an inconvenience (eg colds), but in some case the infected person may suffer significant impact including pain and suffering, income loss, medical bills, etc.

Consider the following:

1. If a person suspects he/she has an infectious disease (eg SARS) and he goes into confined public areas (eg a plane) and spreads that disease, is he liable? Should he be charged?

2. If a prostitute, knows she has a STD, but continues to have unprotected sex with her customers without disclosing her condition, is she liable? Should she be charged?

3. If I am a contractor who gets paid by the hour, and a coworker comes in with chickenpox and infects me, and I lose several days of income. Should I be able to recover the lost income from him?

[geoffrey]

1. If a person suspects he/she has an infectious disease (eg SARS) and he goes into confined public areas (eg a plane) and spreads that disease, is he liable? Should he be charged?

Yes. That's just selfish stupidity.

2. If a prostitute, know she has a STD, but continues to have unprotected sex with her customers without disclosing her condition, is she liable? Should she be charged?

Absolutely. I think most prostitutes probably have STDs anyways. They should all be jailed in my opinion.

3. If I am a contractor who gets paid by the hour, and a coworker comes in with chickenpox and infects me, and I lose several days of income. Should I be able to recover the lost income from him?

If he knows he has chickenpox and you don't 'force' him to come into work, then yup, I think you should.

--

When people are just outright stupid, I think thats a good place for the government to step in and transfer some money around. Might be a good thing, maybe some people would accept some responsibility for themselves, no?

No, who am I kidding.

[Renegade]

Suit to be filed against TB-infected air traveller

Looks like ths has come to pass.

Where exactly is the line? If a child comes with a cold to kindergarden and infects my child, can I sue his parents? How about if the tranmission is unintentional?

[Mad_Michael]

1. If a person suspects he/she has an infectious disease (eg SARS) and he goes into confined public areas (eg a plane) and spreads that disease, is he liable? Should he be charged?

2. If a prostitute, knows she has a STD, but continues to have unprotected sex with her customers without disclosing her condition, is she liable? Should she be charged?

3. If I am a contractor who gets paid by the hour, and a coworker comes in with chickenpox and infects me, and I lose several days of income. Should I be able to recover the lost income from him?

In the first or second cases listed, I think it might be justifiably possible to bring criminal charges against these persons (criminal negligence posing a danger to the public).

In the third case, I think you'd have a hard time getting even civil charges against that person for the reason that they didn't actually or willfully infect you. And you'd have a hard time trying to prove that your infection came specifically from that person and not someone you passed by on the street that day.

[Mad_Michael]

Suit to be filed against TB-infected air traveller

Looks like ths has come to pass.

Where exactly is the line? If a child comes with a cold to kindergarden and infects my child, can I sue his parents? How about if the tranmission is unintentional?

Perhaps one ought to wait to see what happens with this court case before speculating.

[Liam]

I had to say No based on how the available options.

I think an actor ought to need to go beyond mere negligence to be liable for infecting another. I think the standard has to be willful disregard. I think if someone who knows he has a highly infectious case of TB gets on a plane and infects other passengers, or someone who knows he is HIV+ deliberatly hides his status before engaging in unsafe acts, he should be found liable if he infects his girlfriend.

Certainly, there are circumstances, like the STD-infected call girl scenario where I would not assess liability. STDs are, for the most part not life-threatening illnesses and are typically cured with a single dose of medicine. Besides, in the call girl scenario, as with bungee jumping or diving with sharks, the actors ought to own some of the risk and take responsibility for some of the consequences.

[Renegade]

In the third case, I think you'd have a hard time getting even civil charges against that person for the reason that they didn't actually or willfully infect you. And you'd have a hard time trying to prove that your infection came specifically from that person and not someone you passed by on the street that day.

I had to say No based on how the available options.

I think an actor ought to need to go beyond mere negligence to be liable for infecting another. I think the standard has to be willful disregard. I think if someone who knows he has a highly infectious case of TB gets on a plane and infects other passengers, or someone who knows he is HIV+ deliberatly hides his status before engaging in unsafe acts, he should be found liable if he infects his girlfriend.

Certainly, there are circumstances, like the STD-infected call girl scenario where I would not assess liability. STDs are, for the most part not life-threatening illnesses and are typically cured with a single dose of medicine. Besides, in the call girl scenario, as with bungee jumping or diving with sharks, the actors ought to own some of the risk and take responsibility for some of the consequences.

Both of you seem to point to wilful intent or willful disregard. Does intent matter? Should I not be responsible for damage I cause regardless of if I intend to cause that damage or not?

If a tree in my yard topples and falls on my neighbour's house, am I not responsible for the damages regardless of the fact that there was no wilfull intent or wilfull disregard?

[KO2]

Diseases are shared not spread.

In sharing disease we are actually exercising our immune system.

To remove yourself from this normal exposure loop for any length of time would be fatal.

The diseases would evolv, while your immune system would not be able to build up defenses that are necessary for the next exposure when it comes.

That is why we should not try to eradicate the mild strains of bird flu as they appear occassionally.

The best thing for our species would be to allow nature to take its course with the harmless variants to keep our immune system primed for the deadly one.

Edited July 14, 2007 by KO2

[Renegade]

In sharing disease we are actually exercising our immune system.

To remove yourself from this normal exposure loop for any length of time would be fatal.

Isn't that what vaccines are for? Controlled exposure to disease.

The best thing for our species would be to allow nature to take its course with the harmless variants to keep our immune system primed for the deadly one.

If we were to let nature take its course, we would also let virulant and potentially deadly disease spread unchecked. In nature that has the effect of culling the weak and filtering them out of the population.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Renegade

[betsy]

Another lady who runs her own daycare had to re-do the words on her contract due to a recent incident that happened to her daycare.

Apparently a mother brought in her child knowing that she and her child were exposed to some virus (I can't recall the name but it was in the news not too long ago) after a trip to somewhere in Canada.

Then the child started showing symptoms. And another child from her daycare started showing symptoms. And another parent.

That's how they found out what it was. The guilty mom admitted that yes, they got exposed to it.

All the other parents were upset.

I've had a parent who secretly put a peanutbutter cookie with his son's lunch bag knowing that peanuts or nuts of any kinds were forbidden in my house since one of my children (a two year old) was extremely allergic to it....an allergy so serious it could result in death. After I found the cookie and confronted her about it, her reply to me was: "Well, she should know better than to go near it. She knows she's allergic to it!"

So would this fall under negligence with total disregard? I'm afraid we do live in a self-centered society nowadays, so this kind of attitude is just common.

Edited July 14, 2007 by betsy

[KO2]

With my limited knowlege of molecular biology i see disease as something something to be shared in order to keep our immune system in the exposure loop.

We would soon be unable to fend off the quickly evolving pathogens, if we stayed out of the exposure loop

[geoffrey]

With my limited knowlege of molecular biology i see disease as something something to be shared in order to keep our immune system in the exposure loop.

We would soon be unable to fend off the quickly evolving pathogens, if we stayed out of the exposure loop

That is truly a bizarre statement, though I can kind of see your twisted reasoning.

That said, I don't think your quite ready to live your word there and go share some HIV or Ebola. Celebrating the spread of death isn't exactly rational to me. No matter how much we 'share' some disease, your still going to die or be severely impacted.