Write a Comment
4 Comments
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.
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.
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?
Vic
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...
December 4, 2008 • San Jose, CA