Lexplug logoLexplug

Doe v. Johnson

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan
817 F. Supp. 1382 (1993)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person has a legal duty to disclose the risk of HIV transmission to a sexual partner if they have actual knowledge of being infected, have symptoms of the virus, or know a prior sexual partner has been diagnosed with HIV. Knowledge of having engaged in 'high-risk' activity alone is insufficient to create such a duty.


Facts:

  • Jane Doe and Earvin Johnson, Jr. engaged in consensual sexual contact on or about the evening of June 22, 1990, or the morning of June 23, 1990.
  • Doe alleges that she was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by Johnson as a result of this encounter.
  • Prior to the sexual contact, Doe asked Johnson to use a condom, but he refused.
  • Doe claims that before their encounter, Johnson was sexually active with multiple partners.
  • Doe alleged that because of his lifestyle with multiple partners, Johnson knew or should have known that he was at a high risk of being infected with the HIV virus.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jane Doe filed a complaint against Earvin Johnson, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, which is a federal trial court.
  • Johnson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
  • Johnson also moved, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) and to strike certain portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under Michigan tort law, does a person have a legal duty to inform a sexual partner of the risk of HIV transmission based solely on the knowledge that they have engaged in 'high-risk' sexual activity, absent actual knowledge of infection, symptoms of the virus, or knowledge of a prior partner's infection?


Opinions:

Majority - Enslen, District Judge

No, a person does not have a legal duty to inform a sexual partner of the risk of HIV transmission based solely on their 'high-risk' lifestyle. A legal duty to disclose arises only when a defendant has: (1) actual knowledge of being infected with HIV; (2) experienced symptoms associated with HIV; or (3) actual knowledge that a prior sexual partner has been diagnosed with HIV. The court balanced competing societal interests, including the right to privacy in sexual matters against the public health interest in preventing the spread of a fatal disease. It concluded that imposing a duty based on a vague 'high-risk' standard would be unworkable, invasive, and would 'open a door better left closed.' Such a standard would require courts to define 'high-risk,' leading to potential privacy and equal protection violations. Therefore, harm is not legally foreseeable based on a 'high-risk' lifestyle alone; a more specific level of knowledge is required to trigger the duty to warn. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the battery claim, reasoning that consent to sexual contact can be vitiated by the failure to disclose a known infection. It also dismissed the strict liability claim, holding that sexual activity is not an 'abnormally dangerous' activity.



Analysis:

This case establishes a clear, tripartite standard for when a legal duty to disclose HIV risk arises in tort, providing a crucial precedent for cases involving the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. By rejecting a vague 'high-risk lifestyle' standard, the court balanced public health concerns against individual privacy rights, creating a more predictable and less intrusive legal framework. The decision shields individuals from liability based on their sexual history alone, requiring a specific, knowledge-based threshold for negligence and fraud claims. This framework has been influential in shaping how courts analyze liability for the transmission of infectious diseases in intimate encounters.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Doe v. Johnson (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"