Liability for infecting others Applies to swingers: Swingers Discussion 58189

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

TOPIC: Liability for infecting others Applies to swingers

Created by: mischiefnyou Original Starting post for this thread:
The appellate court agreed that the names and contact information of John's former sexual partners were not central to Bridget's claims. On the other hand, John's medical history was allowed, as were certain questions regarding whether and when John knew or should have known that he was at sexual risk. Under California law, individuals are liable for injuries caused by "want of ordinary care and skill," including the transmission of sexual diseases. The court ruled that some answers were critical in determining if John failed this basic test. According to the Los Angeles Times, the justices seemed to lean toward the principle that a new sexual partner should be held responsible for informing his *or her mate about potential risks. The tougher questions, however, were whether the mere fact that a man has had unprotected sex with other men means that he should consider himself a potential vector for HIV -- and if the answer is yes, whether the names of former male partners should become a legitimate subject for discovery in a subsequent lawsuit. Speaking to the Times, Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer Pizer said she hoped the court would apply its legal reasoning to all sexually transmitted diseases, not just HIV. "One of the very important issues," Pizer said, "is the extent to which litigants can go on a fishing expedition." If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Calif. court weighs husband's sexual past.

Created by: mischiefnyou
Original Starting post for this thread:

The appellate court agreed that the names and contact information of John's former sexual partners were not central to Bridget's claims. On the other hand, John's medical history was allowed, as were certain questions regarding whether and when John knew or should have known that he was at sexual risk. Under California law, individuals are liable for injuries caused by "want of ordinary care and skill," including the transmission of sexual diseases. The court ruled that some answers were critical in determining if John failed this basic test.

*According to the Los Angeles Times, the justices seemed to lean toward the *principle that a new sexual partner should be held responsible for informing his *or her mate about potential risks. 

The tougher questions, however, were whether the mere fact that a man has had unprotected sex with other men means that he should consider himself a potential vector for HIV -- and if the answer is yes, whether the names of former male partners should become a legitimate subject for discovery in a subsequent lawsuit.

Speaking to the Times, Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer Pizer said she hoped the court would apply its legal reasoning to all sexually transmitted diseases, not just HIV.

"One of the very important issues," Pizer said, "is the extent to which litigants can go on a fishing expedition."  If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Calif. court weighs husband's sexual past.

GoTo Page: 1 ... More

1 to 10 of 10

User Details are only visible to members.	I think the main reason most things go to court is MONEY. Find a way to get out of working by thinking up a lame reason for somebody doing something wrong by you and then you take them to court. Sue happy county is the issue. Yes, if you play, you pay, one way or another. Luck is a funny thing.
Springboro OH			Username hidden (3 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	MWC, the Northern part is the more liberal. Southern California is intensely conservative, the home of the John Birch Society. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in San Francisco. Have a great day!
Shadyside PA			Username hidden (319 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	MWC, (Really, this should now be in the open forum.) So laws which push us to take actions are bad? If California were to fall off the map, I assume you think this would be a better country?
Shadyside PA			Username hidden (319 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	MWC, just curious. Why do you say, "unfortunately?"
Shadyside PA			Username hidden (319 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Curious That's true, however the only reason there is a case in court is because someone felt they were injuried by someone withholding information. That's the only reason it's in the court now. Also as the swinging population grows or at least becomes more accepted it will be their concerns and views that help shape laws by way of the court cases and voting.
Sandston VA			Username hidden (195 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I have these discussions with folks who know my name. If we haven't even gotten to that point, then the point is moot. You are on your own. That cuts both ways. Mischief
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	CuriousNew You asked "How much do you have to disclose to prospective sexual partners?" I believe that if any person knows they have caught something then it's their obligation to inform all sexual partners. I also believe if any person suspects they might be infected with something then they are again obligated to find out asap and then inform partners if confirmed. Doing anything less is truely liable and they should be held accountable if they fail in these responsibilities. Along those same lines if a single or couples swings with others without protection then I do believe that's an important issue that should be disclosed to any new partners. The bottom line is that anyone in this lifestyle is taking a risk and should do what's in their power to limit that risk which should include using protection, cleaning toys, not sharing toys and getting tested on a regular basis. However from what I have seen so many people are willing to allow exceptions. I have seen couples that insisted on condom usage, but then shared toys or fingers. There are many that enjoy swallowing (M & F) and there are a few VDs that you can catch that way as well. Bottom line we all decide on what we are comfortable with and then continue to hope our luck and Intuition don't fail us. The last thing we need is someone knowingly exposing their partners to a known or suspected infliction.
Sandston VA			Username hidden (195 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Sorry about the reference. I got it off Yahoo. I was merely using it as a discussion tool. It is an interesting situation. M.
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	My post title is missing the Question marks I put on it. My belief is swingers by default know and accept the risk. What about vanilla partners of folks who have swung? What about men who hide their MSM activity? If you list or tell me you are straight, I put you in a different risk category. Bimales are in a different risk category IMHO. Who in your opinion is responsible for the information? Should folks ask? Or Should folks tell about potential STD issues? I assume all fluids are infectious. I'm not much fun at orgies. I assume responsibility for all contact involving me. If I let you, it's on me. What about testing? Does having negative tests clear you of moral, ethical, and legal liability? What if I contract an STD in your home? Will your home owner's cover it? I long ago answered these questions for myself. But other's may want to consider the implications. Careful Mischief
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	The appellate court agreed that the names and contact information of John's former sexual partners were not central to Bridget's claims. On the other hand, John's medical history was allowed, as were certain questions regarding whether and when John knew or should have known that he was at sexual risk. Under California law, individuals are liable for injuries caused by "want of ordinary care and skill," including the transmission of sexual diseases. The court ruled that some answers were critical in determining if John failed this basic test. According to the Los Angeles Times, the justices seemed to lean toward the principle that a new sexual partner should be held responsible for informing his *or her mate about potential risks. The tougher questions, however, were whether the mere fact that a man has had unprotected sex with other men means that he should consider himself a potential vector for HIV -- and if the answer is yes, whether the names of former male partners should become a legitimate subject for discovery in a subsequent lawsuit. Speaking to the Times, Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer Pizer said she hoped the court would apply its legal reasoning to all sexually transmitted diseases, not just HIV. "One of the very important issues," Pizer said, "is the extent to which litigants can go on a fishing expedition." If you'd like to know more, you can find stories related to Calif. court weighs husband's sexual past.
Glen Burnie MD			Username hidden (2785 post)

GoTo Page: 1 ... More

1 to 10 of 10

TOPIC: Liability for infecting others Applies to swingers

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Safe Sex: Liability for infecting others Applies to swingers