Should a doctor be subject to liability to non-patients who suffer an injury because of negligence toward a patient?

Suppose a doctor misdiagnoses a contagious condition on a patient, and the patient then causes an injury to a third person.  Should the third person have a cause of action against the doctor?  This is a question that has been addressed by a number of cases, many of them involving sexually transmitted diseases.

Now, in a case called Jane Doe v Charles Cochran, available here, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a doctor may be liable to a third party infected with an STD after the doctor had mistakenly informed the patient he was free of infection.

Two judges dissented, here, arguing that it is wrong to extend the duty of the doctor to include non-patients.

Charlie Sheen’s Ex-Fiancée Sues Over Sheen’s Failure to Disclose HIV Status; does she have a case?

Charlie Sheen’s ex-fiancée sues over Sheen’s failure to disclose HIV status.  Does she have a case?  Two articles discuss the issues here and here.

Duty to inform lover's husband of STD?

From a story in Law.com: A man who says he contracted a sexually transmitted disease after his wife had an affair with her allegedly infected psychiatrist can bring a negligence action against the doctor, a state judge has ruled. The man, [...] claimed that Dr. [...] had a duty to warn him that he had herpes simplex before having unprotected sex with Levine's wife. I have no problem imposing liability, but doesn't this sound just a little odd? So the plaintiff is saying that his cheating wife's lover should give him a call before he sleeps with the wife to let him know....? I wonder how that call is going to go... "Hello, Mr. Doe. This is your wife's doctor. I am pretty sure I am going to have sex with her tonight. Just thought I'd let you know... Oh and by the way, I have an STD. Have a good day now....." Also, given the quoted language, I have another question. Suppose the good doctor had used protection. Would that have elimanted the duty to make the call?

Update on lawsuit vs Roberto Alomar

Yesterday I commented that I was not sure I understood what the plaintiff's claim was for. Today, CNN reports that she "claims in the lawsuit that Alomar's negligence caused her severe "emotional distress" over the health of her children. Court papers say that because the couple lived with the children, they may have been exposed to Alomar's saliva or blood in the bathroom, through things like toothbrushes and other items. [She] claims to suffer from "permanent emotional distress" even after repeatedly testing negative for HIV. The lawsuit claims her fear of contracting the disease is known as "AIDS phobia" and that she suffers from permanent post-traumatic stress disorder." The new CNN story is available here.

Claim vs baseball star for exposure to HIV

An ex-girlfriend of former major league baseball player Roberto Alomar has filed a lawsuit alleging Alomar insisted on unprotected sex for four years despite showing obvious signs of HIV. She is seeking at least $15 million in punitive damages. Alomar's lawyer has told the New York Daily News the allegations are "frivolous and baseless." The plaintiff claims she started to date Alomar in 2002 and had unprotected sex for the next four years. She says that Alomar refused to get tested for HIV, despite what she claims were signs associated with AIDS. She says that Alomar finally tested positive for HIV in February 2006 and that follow-up exams determined that he had full-blown AIDS. The plaintiff, however has tested negative. These claims raise a couple of interesting questions. First of all, it is not clear to me what is the basis of the claim. Is it battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress? Also, assuming all the allegations are true, given that the plaintiff has not tested positive for HIV, what is the injury? Without more information, it seems that the result of the claim will hinge on whether she can recover merely for the emotional distress at finding out that she had been exposed to HIV rather than having to show that she was infected with HIV. Jurisdictions are split on that question. Also, if she knew of the problem back in 2002, why did she continue to have unprotected sex with the defendant for four years? Should the court find that her own conduct, at some point, gives rise to a defense based on assumption of the risk? The full story is available here. Thanks to Alexandros Stamatoglou for the information