No, the first judge was wrong to throw the case out. The appeals court said this case is too complicated to decide without a full trial. A jury needs to hear the evidence and decide three key things: 1) When should Pam have reasonably figured out she was sick? 2) Should Richard have known he might have herpes, given his affair and his own rashes? and 3) Was Richard the one who actually gave Pam herpes? The court created a new rule in Tennessee: you have a duty to protect your partner from an STD if you know or even just *suspect* you have one.

Yes, the lower court made a mistake. First, we think a jury should decide if Pam waited too long to sue. She says she didn't know about herpes, so maybe she couldn't have figured it out sooner. Second, we think that if someone knows or should know they have a disease like herpes, they have to be careful not to give it to others. There's enough evidence that Richard might have known he was sick, so a jury should decide that too. Finally, we think a jury can look at all the facts and decide if Richard probably gave Pam herpes, even without a doctor saying so for sure. So, we're sending the case back to the lower court for a trial.

No. Summary judgment is improper because genuine issues of material fact exist that must be resolved by a jury. On the issue of the statute of limitations, the discovery rule applies, and whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering her injury is a question of fact for the jury. On the issue of duty, the court holds for the first time in Tennessee that a person who knows or should know they have a venereal disease owes a duty of care to prevent transmission; whether the defendant's symptoms and extramarital affair meant he 'should have known' he was infected is a jury question. Finally, on causation, the plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence—including her long-term monogamy, the timing of her symptoms, and evidence that her only other sexual partner had a different type of herpes—to create a triable issue of fact for the jury as to the source of her infection.

Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. First, regarding the statute of limitations, we hold that whether the Plaintiff exercised due diligence in discovering her injury is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. The discovery rule may apply here because Plaintiff presented evidence that she had no reason to believe her minor genital rashes were related to her husband's infidelity and that she was unfamiliar with herpes symptoms. Second, we hold that an individual who knows or should know they have a venereal disease has a legal duty to use reasonable care in preventing the disease's transmission. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant knew or should have known he had herpes, given evidence of his extramarital affair and genital symptoms. Finally, on the issue of causation, we find that expert testimony is not required to establish causation in herpes transmission cases, and the jury may infer causation through circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff presented evidence that could create an inference that Defendant was the cause of her herpes, including her long monogamous marriage and the timing of her symptoms. Whether Plaintiff could have contracted the virus from another source is a question of fact for a jury to decide. Therefore, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Hamblen v. Davidson

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot