$750k payout in HIV infectioncase

www.samesame.com.au
  • 86
  • 0
  • 2132

An HIV+ New South Wales man has successfully sued his ex-partner for $757,487, saying he knowingly infected him with the virus.

The Sydney Star Observer reports that the plaintiff, who cannot be named, had repeatedly spoken to his ex about their HIV status before deciding to have unprotected sex. But the ex knew he was HIV positive, and the complainant later tested positive himself.

The plaintiff says “I was led to believe I was the one who infected him.” The experience had led him to a “total breakdown” and two suicide attempts.

This case is believed to be a first of its kind in Australia. New South Wales’ HIV groups have warned that criminal proceedings over HIV transmissions may lead to stigmatisation of people with HIV.

“In countries where a positive diagnosis is criminalised and stigmatised, people avoid testing. They therefore cannot access management and may be forced into risky situations,” Levinia Crooks, CEO of the Australasian Society for HIV Medicine, told the SSO.

Social

Nobody has hearted this, be the first Be the first!

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
16465
EdHunter

EdHunter said on the 28th Apr, 2010

Me either ?

so you wont go and get tested and if you do get it you will just let it ravage your body till its too late ?

Have any of the people watched friends die of that cunt of a disease ? the sooner you get on the meds the hopefully better you will be even those meds can cause their own problems. But I have friends on them and going along quite fine. I also had friends get it before there were drugs and they went downhill fast !

First at all dear. People will not get tested until they absolutely need to. i.e that’s when they are in a hospital with a pipe up their ass. At that stage they will get "sad news" and probably will recover and leave another XX years on meds. However BEFORE getting into such a situation they will avoid the testing as much as possible. Why? Because they will be afraid that now that they know they will need to tell everyone hence the stigma, and being afraid of being judge not only going to jail!

And I’m telling you this as a son of a nurse who have seen this instead of putting ideas out of nowhere. People NEED to feel safe about being tested and whatever comes after that in case they do have the virus. Not afraid of being rejects, and moreover being dragged to prison!

In countries where there are harsh laws/ barriers against HIV positive people like Russia/ Romania levels of INDEPENDENTLY tested HIV positive guys is 72% lower than in liberal countries like the UK/ Australia. Independently tested are those who walk into a GP office and ask for a test.

On other hand I'm soooooooooooooo glad the gay community actually discusses this more and more recently :)

MickeyD

MickeyD said on the 29th Apr, 2010

I have read a lot of alarmist and ignorant rhetoric in this thread. First of all this is a civil proceeding, not a criminal case, so I don’t know why people are going on about ‘criminalised’ behaviour and associated ramifications etc.


It is really disappointing to see so little sympathy for the victim here and so many excuses made for his offending partner. Why are you casting such suspicion on the victim?? In Australia we owe a legal duty of care to certain other individuals/groups. An individual for instance, owes his partner of duty of care in respect of certain obligations. On the facts, there was a negotiation about the HIV status of these individuals before a decision was reached to engage in unprotected sex. The victim relied on this disclosure by his partner before reaching this decision. His partner owed him a duty of care to honestly disclose his HIV status, a duty of care which he breached. The victim here is in no way responsible for his seroconversion. How can any contributory negligence be attributed to him?? He didn’t make any mistake! A mistake might have been having unprotected sex with a casual partner without any discussion of HIV status. Do you not see the distinction??? Personally I think this is a great outcome and am surprised the victim didn’t get a larger award.


mrg74- you would be statute barred by the Limitations Act from bringing an action against the fellow who infected you (meaning that too much time has passed since the event). Not to mention you would need to have a valid cause of action in the first instance.


zebra-stripes, the government does not pay this damages award. It would be payed by his offending partner. In the event he cannot pay it he will be bankrupted.


eurolad- you should really not post anything that you don’t have a clue about in such an authoritative tone (unless it is your intention to have people rolling around the floor in fits of laughter). If you think citizens cannot be held criminally responsible for something they were not aware of, think again. It is called a strict liability offence (of course there is a rebuttable presumption that all crimes have a mens rea element). Further, let me introduce you to another mens rea- recklessness. If you are reckless to a probability standard of bringing about a prohibited act, then you will be judged to have acted as if you intended to bring about such consequences.


This is just my opinion but HIV+ guys who infect other guys with this virus should have the book thrown at them (especially in circumstances such as those in this case). The public interest in protecting the population from HIV seroconversion far outweighs the interest in protecting HIV+ people from stigmatisation- anyone who thinks differently is deluded.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 1st May, 2010

But Shane, unprotected sex only "carries a high risk of HIV infection" when the guy fucking you is HIV+, which the guilty party assured his partner he wasn't. You can make the argument that everyone should use a condom at all times, even with their long-term partner, but quite a lot of us would rather not live like that and hence vet the guys we sleep with. Obviously that system relies on honesty, which the vast majority of HIV+ guys are.


agreed. this is about breaking the trust of someone in you are in a relationship with.

a decision like this one WON"T affect testing rates because the vast majority of guys (both negative and positive) ARE trust worthy and reliable.

it'll only be the scumbags who think "i won't get tested so i can continue going around having unsafe sex with anyone i want to" that won't get tested.

and they won't even realise that just "suspecting" that you are HIV positive would make you responsible. ie. if you have been barebacking for the past 5 years in backrooms, saunas and in random hook ups, then you are almost certainly hiv positive. just because you haven't been officially diagnosed, doesn't mean that you wouldn't still be legally responsible.

and to finish on a lighter note, most people would never want to hurt someone else, let alone someone who they are in an intimate relationship with. Let's not judge all positive people by this one c*nt who happens to have HIV. I bet he's a nasty character in other parts of his life as well.

JayTee

JayTee said on the 1st May, 2010



and how exactly is one person legally responsible if they don't know their status???
Maybe if they lie to the guy saying that they were negative you might have a point.
Fact is most people are not that naive, they will either say that last time they got tested they were negative (even if that was 10 years ago) or they will say i don't know my status and don't care in which case you have absolutely no basis under the law to convict someone.

euro, i don'[t think you understand exactly how the law works.

if i have a bank account where my pay goes into but i never bother checking it, i can still be reasonably sure of about how much money i have in there. i may not be completely on the exact amount, but i'd know if there was money in there - particularly if i kept on withdrawing money from the atm time and time again.

just the same with HIV.

you don't need to know officially if you are positive or negative, but you can make a guess.

for example, if your last test 10 years ago was negative and you have only had safe sex since then, you can be reasonably assured that you are still negative.

for example, if your last test 5 years ago was negative, but you have had LOTS of unsafe sex since then with random men in back rooms, saunas, beats and with endless serial monogamy, then you can probably guess that there is a significant chance that you are no longer negative.

that's not ignorance. that's 'reasonable suspicion'. in the court of law that is enough to make you responsible.

if you have one or two drinks and you aren't sure if you are over the limit or not and you think "i'll risk it" and drive home, then you ARE responsible if you are over the limit.

so many people seem to be making out that just because one guy was a c*nt that the rest of the gay community wouldn't do the right thing for themselves and get tested. We DON"T live in a community where the majority don't care about others enough to put their own health at risk!

the majority of people would want to go onto medications and look after their own health rather than not test and put their health at risk, just so that they could continue to bareback with some kind of false "deferment of responsibility".

you have a very dim view of the members of our community. i think you should credit them with alittle bit more intelligence, as well as compassion for others. People DO care! it's only the odd one here and there that is the utter ars*h*le.