December 1, 2008

$12.5 Million Penalty in California HIV Criminalization Case

After a six-year legal battle, the California Supreme Court has ordered an HIV-positive man to pay his former wife $12.5 million for infecting her with the virus, the Los Angeles Times reports.  

According to court documents, the former husband and wife—identified as “Bridget B.” and “John B.”—each tested negative for the virus in the past. But in October 2000, two months after their honeymoon, Bridget B. discovered she was HIV positive.

For more than a year, Bridget B. believed she had infected her husband, but in 2002, she found e-mails indicating that John B. had engaged in unprotected sex with men he met through the Internet. Representing himself at trial, John B. argued that his ex-wife had contracted the virus first.

Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled that John B. acted in malice and fraud and must pay Bridget B. $5 million in future loss of earnings and $7.5 million in general damages, even if he files for bankruptcy.

In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that people could be held liable for failing to inform a new partner of previous risky sexual behavior. Nationwide, HIV criminalization laws have become widespread.

Search: criminalization, California Supreme Court

Scroll down to comment on this story.

Previous Comments:

Vic, San Jose, CA, 2008-12-04 15:30:52
I'd like to know who could deal with 6+ years of legal fees and still have this kind of money to pay out. Sort of says a lot about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer...

Michael, Haslett, 2008-12-03 13:54:28
This is so unreal. I agree that if someone does not tell or lies about having the HIV that they should be held responsible, but not to this degree. But I guess its another case where people need to learn to always go with safe sex no matter what. Better to be safe then sorry in the end.

Buffy Wetsworth, Coachella, 2008-12-02 13:34:07
Good Gawd, what an excessive award!! I have HIV and would never, ever infect anybody and would ALWAYS disclose at the initial meeting. Bankruptcy would wipe out the judgement. So, like, why not base the penalty on monthly stipends and lifetime medical care for the victim?? That way the perp can avoid bankruptcy by taking responsibility for their actions through lifetime payments and benefits. This ruling is opening a pandora's box which could actually make matters worse about disclosure.

Annette, New Jersey, 2008-12-01 23:22:41
Hmmm. This is a tough one for me. I'd like to say it's a good thing and the bastard deserves to pay. Maybe he does. But this sets a disturbing precedent. Since I was infected by my fiance (and never received retribution, unless you consider his death retribution-I don't), I want to say "let him pay". But no money can settle this claim. Do the ends justify the means? Will this do more harm than good to society? Is it really about money? If so, does money determine our ethical standards?