Contact me at markploftus@aol.com

An interesting jury verdict came down last week in Chicago. A woman who had become infected with HIV through sexual contact with her boyfriend sued his parents for allegedly lying to her about his medical condition. Both sides stipulated that the man had in fact been responsible for transmitting the disease to the plaintiff in 1996. The plaintiff alleged that in 1997 she asked her boyfriend's parents if he had AIDS and they denied it. She further claimed that she asked them on additional occasions up until the time of her boyfriend's death[in 1999]and the parents denied it. The defense was that they truly did not know, and even if they had, they were precluded by confidentiality laws from providing the information to her.

The plaintiff's theory was that the parents did indeed owe her a duty because they had assumed a central role in the healthcare of their son after he was diagnosed with AIDS in 1992. The plaintiff presented proof that when the son was questioned, he would tell the plaintiff to ask his parents because they were "in charge" of his medical care.

The case seemingly was decided on testimony provided by the ex-husband of the deceased boyfriend's sister who claimed in an affadavit that he had talked with the parents a year before the son died and the mother had acknowledged he was suffering from AIDS at that time. The case had been tried once before and the jury had been unable to reach a verdict. This time around the jury awarded the plaintiff $2 million dollars. Incidentally the plaintiff is now suffering from full blown AIDS which has destroyed her immune system.

The jury's decision will likely be appealed. And the case does raise some interesting issues...particularly on the confidentiality front. I frankly don't see how the statements by the plaintiff that his parents were "in charge" eliminates his duty to tell the plaintiff. There was nothing in the news accounts I read suggesting that the boyfriend was somehow incompetent or incapable of handling his affairs. And under the law in Illinois it is illegal to release information about a person's HIV status without their consent. I will keep you posted on this case as it winds its way through the appeal process.

In addition, a recent decision from the First Appellate Court of Illinois overturned a jury verdict rendered on behalf of a guest who was seriously injured while staying at a large national hotel. The plaintiff, a pilot, suffered serious injuries when he turned on a vanity light switch in the bathroom in his room. At the time he did so he received an electric shock and saw a spark, causing him to move backwards, ultimately injuring his right shoulder and arm. He claimed that as a result of the incident he lost his license and could no longer fly. The jury returned a verdict against the hotel, and it was appealed.

In short, without boring you to tears, the Appellate Court ruled that the it was not reasonable for the Hotel to anticipate the danger of an electric shock to the plaintiff from a light switch. They came to that conclusion based on some evidence that typically the electricity would go back to the breaker and not to the switch. In addition the Court noted that the plaintiff hadn't presented any expert evidence showing how the electricity would go to the switch - and furthermore, hadn't presented any evidence that the switch itself was defective. As a result, the Court ruled that the electric shock the plaintiff received was not reasonably foreseeable. So be careful the next time you need to go to the bathroom in your hotel and you flip on that bathroom light. If you get blasted with electricity the hotel won't be held accountible.