Mussivand v. David
544 N.E.2d 265, 45 Ohio St. 3d 314, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 236 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who knows or should know they are infected with a venereal disease owes a duty of care to their sexual partner's spouse, as it is reasonably foreseeable that the disease may be transmitted from the initial partner to their spouse.
Facts:
- The appellant, a medical doctor, engaged in a sexual affair with the appellee's wife.
- The appellant allegedly knew or should have known that he was infected with a venereal disease.
- The appellant did not inform the appellee's wife that he was infected with a venereal disease.
- As a result of their sexual contact, the appellant allegedly transmitted the disease to the appellee's wife.
- The appellee's wife, unaware she was infected, subsequently transmitted the venereal disease to the appellee through sexual relations.
- The appellee alleged that he was consequently infected with an incurable disease.
- The appellee later confronted the appellant, asking if he had an affair with his wife, which the appellant allegedly denied.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee (husband) filed a complaint against the appellant (his wife's paramour) in an Ohio trial court, alleging causes of action for negligence and fraud.
- The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court granted the appellant's motion and dismissed the entire complaint.
- The appellee appealed the dismissal to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of both the negligence and fraud claims.
- The appellant then appealed the decision of the court of appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 person who knows or should know they have a venereal disease owe a duty of care to the spouse of their sexual partner to prevent transmission of the disease?
Opinions:
Majority - Alice Robie Resnick, J.
Yes. A person who knows they are infected with a venereal disease owes a duty of care to the spouse of their sexual partner because injury to the spouse is a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act. The court reasoned that public policy and existing case law impose a duty on individuals with contagious diseases to prevent their spread. This duty extends to warning potential sexual partners. The critical legal question is whether this duty extends to a third party, like the spouse of a sexual partner. The court determined that the existence of such a duty hinges on the foreseeability of the injury. Since a reasonably prudent person would anticipate that a married individual will engage in sexual relations with their spouse, it is foreseeable that transmitting a venereal disease to a married person is likely to result in the disease being transmitted to their spouse. Therefore, the appellant owed a duty of care to the appellee. The court further held that the wife is not an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation unless she knew or should have known she was infected, which is a question of fact for a jury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the fraud claim, however, finding that the appellee could not have justifiably relied on the appellant's denial of the affair given their adversarial relationship.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands tort liability for the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases beyond the immediate sexual partner. It establishes that a duty of care can extend to a foreseeable third party, specifically the spouse of one's sexual partner. The court's foreseeability analysis creates a clear precedent that the marital relationship is a sufficient link to establish a duty to the non-involved spouse. The ruling also clarifies the application of the intervening cause doctrine in this context, providing that the chain of liability is only broken when the intermediate partner acquires knowledge of the infection, thereby assuming their own duty to prevent further transmission. This case serves as a key example of how courts adapt common law negligence principles to address public health concerns and the consequences of interpersonal conduct.
