Johnson v. American National Red Cross
578 S.E.2d 106, 276 Ga. 270, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 161 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on a fear of contracting a disease such as HIV, a plaintiff must present evidence of actual exposure to the disease-causing agent; a defendant's negligence creating a mere possibility of exposure is insufficient.
Facts:
- Bernice Mantooth, a 75-year-old woman with multiple serious medical conditions, received a two-unit blood transfusion on August 29, 1998.
- The American Red Cross later discovered that the blood it supplied came from a donor who had lived for 13 months in a region of Africa where a rare, undetectable HIV strain known as “Group O” was found.
- The acceptance of this blood violated the Red Cross's internal policy, which prohibited donations from individuals who had lived in that region for more than 12 months.
- The donor had no other risk factors for HIV and had consistently tested negative for the virus in the five years between his stay in Africa and his donation.
- Mantooth was informed that the blood she received should not have been accepted by the Red Cross.
- Mantooth underwent three subsequent HIV tests, all of which were negative.
- The Red Cross informed Mantooth by letter that the chance of transmission was 'extremely remote' and that no case of transfusion-transmitted 'Group O' HIV had ever been reported.
- Mantooth claimed to live in constant fear of having contracted HIV and passing it to her family, but she did not seek medical treatment specifically for this emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernice Mantooth filed suit in the trial court against the American Red Cross for negligence and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Red Cross, finding that Mantooth had failed to present any evidence of actual exposure to HIV.
- After Mantooth's death, Lester Johnson, the executor of her estate (the Estate), appealed the trial court's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia, the state's highest court, granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff state a valid claim for negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the fear of contracting HIV from a blood transfusion without providing evidence of actual exposure to the virus?
Opinions:
Majority - Hines, Justice
No. A plaintiff cannot recover for negligence or negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the fear of contracting HIV without proving actual exposure to the virus. To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The Estate failed to prove the element of damages, as there was no evidence that Mantooth's physical ailments were proximately caused by the quality of the blood she received. Furthermore, following the precedent set in Russaw v. Martin, a claim for emotional distress resulting from fear of contracting HIV requires evidence of 'actual exposure.' The court reasoned that without proof of exposure, the claimed damages are too speculative and the plaintiff's fear is considered unreasonable as a matter of law. Although Mantooth could have demonstrated exposure through means other than a positive test, such as developing symptoms of HIV, she offered no such evidence. Given the complete lack of evidence that the donor was infected or that Mantooth contracted the virus, her fear was legally insufficient to support a claim for damages.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'actual exposure' rule in Georgia for tort claims involving fear of contracting a disease. It establishes a significant evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs, requiring them to prove more than a defendant's breach of duty and their own resulting fear. By deeming fear 'unreasonable as a matter of law' without proof of exposure, the court protects defendants like blood banks from liability for remote, speculative, or undetectable risks. This precedent makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to recover for genuine emotional distress caused by a defendant's negligence if that negligence only created a possibility, rather than an actuality, of harm.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. American National Red Cross