The Public Rejects Compensation for 'Surprise STDs' [INFOGRAPHIC]

Didn't she also ask for a condom and he refused?

I think there was also a part where he became aggressive about not using the condom. I could be wrong?

I'm not sure; I would have to read about it some more, but either way that guy is just disgusting. Including the men who are defending his malicious action.

Look. I am not defending him. What he did was wrong. I am against the 900k payout. I think it is too much and sets a dangerous precedence.

I get that you're against the 900k payout, but that is an entirely separate issue from these facts:

1. The man was negligent, aggressive, and acted with either malice or disregard for the person who he was to have sex with.

2. The responsibility for this is 75 : 25 because he kept this information from the woman AND refused to take steps to lower the likelihood of transmission.

3. For his actions, the man deserves to have to pay up. Now, we can argue all day and long exactly HOW MUCH he has to pay up, but that is irrelevant to the fact that he needs to pay for this.

The SH article said 'There were also suggestions of battery ("aggressive consummation"), which made it impossible for her to put a condom on him'.

I suggest she didn't care. Suggestions, right.

I suggest that you check the name of whom I replied to. Is it yours? No?

Hm, wonder why.

Don't know. Why don't you tell me?

From what I read she asked he said he didn't and they proceeded to get jiggy with it.

You are really a sad individual.

Ha! No I am not an emotional thinker. There is a difference.

There is nothing emotional with being able to comprehend someone not letting their sex partner know they have an STD. You are being emotional about the money given; well next time he will know not to be a manipulative sleeze ball, and her naive.

"You are being emotional about the money given" Not even close."

Maybe he is a manipulative sleaze ball. I can name a bunch of those.. male and female.

both are to blame for this and both were foolish

Again, one was stupid and one was malicious. Yes, she was stupid. But stupidity isn't a crime. His act was worse, as the judge ruled she's 25% responsible and him 75%. Thats because he actually had the knowledge of the outcome.

Look man..

2.
Law . evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

That is the law of malice according to the courts. You are slandering the guy. Like how I did that?

Your definition actually sounds like exactly what he did. He wrongfully injured another person.

Thanks for bolstering my point.

Ha!. did you miss the word "evil intent"? There need to be intent. DO I need to post that definition too?

Unfortunately the information at hand doesn't indicate that the trial involved seeking to determine his intent.

You want a win, here, I'll retract the use of the word malice. Feel better.

Doesn't change the fact that he still wrongfully injured another person, he knowingly took the risk of infecting her. That willful act, that negligence put her in danger.

Yes I will agree with that.

I don't believe 900k fits that judgement.

And thats a different discussion, one that I don't really care about.

Would you agree that say medical costs related to the illness would suffice as a ruling instead of 900k?

You don't care about but that is my whole argument. No wonder our discussion goes no where.

Dude, I've said a thousand times that I don't care what the reward was. You've been arguing with me this whole time about if this is a valid case or not. Thats been your argument all along. If you thought this was a valid case but the reward was too high you could have very easily and very smartly said many posts ago "I think she should have only gotten x." Instead you've been trying to argue, half assed, against her case in its entirety.

So which is it. If your whole argument is purely against the reward then what should she have received? Or is your argument really against the case as a whole? Those are two different issues.

Our discussion goes no where, by the way, because you keep trying to avoid details and counterarguments and questions - which is funny considering we're discussing a legal case thats going to involve details and counter arguments and questions. If you want to discuss a legal case you have to be able to counter argue points and answer questions instead of dodging.

Yup I know you have. I do care. Like I have told many thousands of times.

Actually you avoid details.

I doubt you're in any better position to determine the lead up to this night of sex, so I find your indignation somewhat arrogant. She could have been a hooker, too. So I don't think that saying "You're on your own if you go around screwing people you don't know that well" is at all out of line.

I have no sympathy for her choice and her outcome. She was stupid and will have to live with an STD for the rest of her life as a result.

The thing is, though, that while I hold that opinion of her I also can see his role clearly. And while she was stupid he made an educated choice to expose her to what he had without warning. Thats a worse action than regular stupidity. Its the foundational reason we have high risk factors for unprotected sex and the spread of STDs. It doesn't start with the stupid people who make dumb hormonal choices, it starts with the criminals that knowingly expose people to their infection. Thats the foundation.

So go ahead and think her dumb all you want. But I wish people would look at the situation as a whole and recognize his culpability as well, his responsibility. Too many people are gleeful to yell slut while this guy slinks away.

And I only deal with the facts presented. I'm not trying to determine the lead up to the night of sex. All I need to know is if he knew he had it and if he refused to warn or take precautions. My judgement on her choices don't matter. Whats between two people, how fast they decide to screw, isn't any of our business. Though thats all it seems people care about. All I care about is if someone behaved maliciously. He did. Case closed.

Well said Superman. :-)

She gets STDs
He gets a monetary fine.

So they're BOTH punished. Sounds fair to me.

t's pretty disgusting and hypocritical- to say the least.
At most, it's actively malicious.

In the UK it's illegal to deliberately infect someone with HIV (by sleeping with them without warning them of the diagnosis - if intent can be proven).
Is this not the case in the US?

agreed and thanks for speaking out on this.

Wow; I am loving you right now lol, excellent comment.

Hanging is too good for that guy.

STDs are becoming a problem in a more mature population because they believe with no risk of pregnancy they are home free. Yes, I think if the guy knew and did not warn her he is liable. However, remember that just because the jury awards that amount does not mean she will ever get it. I predict she will never get a penny. If the guy does not have money then she is out of luck. That is why all the attorneys like to take a case that involved insurance companies, businesses, and any that might have liability insurance.

You know it takes 2 people to have consensual sex. If he didn't have any "protection" why didn't she. Then if there wasn't any why did she continue?

What a joke this 900k was.

I'm sure her medication will be covered by the state, too. What does a herpes-ridden skank spend .9 million on, anyway?

Stay classy

[;~D]

Her attorney I guess. I just am flabbergasted at this suit.