Friday, October 26, 2012

Hogan v. Tavzel case brief

Hogan v. Tavzel case summary
660 So. 2D 350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995)
Tort Law

-D, and P, a couple, were married for 15 years, but separated.
-They attempted to reconcile, D infected P with genital warts.
-D knew of condition, did not warn P.
-Couple was divorced after the deed.

-Can a P sue for battery due to getting a sexually transmitted disease through consensual sex?

-Yes, in Florida, the court sees no reason to not hold a tortfeasor liable for battery for infecting another with a sexually transmitted disease.

-Consent to sexual intercourse is not the same as consent to be infected with a venereal disease.

-The P did not consent to being infected, instead, the P consented to sex, which are both quite different.
-Here the defendant concealed an important fact that would have affected the P's decision to consent.

Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...