Lawsuit alleges that an unnamed celebrity gave woman herpes in Royal Oak in July

[mikeg19]

I noticed it said, "Her lawsuit also alleges that the defendant "knew or should have known" that he was infected with Herpes Simplex Virus 2."

Scratching my head. They're suggesting he didn't know he had herpes? If it's not a provable fact that he had herpes prior to the trists, how does she prove he gave her herpes if her lawsuit claims he "should" have known? Couldn't he say in his defense that it was the other way around and she gave him herpes? Why weren't criminal charges laid? Why the anonymity of the celebrity if it's a fact that a celebrity has herpes? So, if someone has herpes, has a trist with someone and then claims the other party gave them herpes they can go after them for $75K? I guess that's how legal blackmail and extortion works. Settle the case or someone will reveal your name in a lawsuit and damage your celebrity reputation even though they can't prove the allegation. Very unethical IMO that everybody in the case gets to be anonymous.

I get it that it's possible this "celebrity" may have contracted the virus, showed no signs of it, gave it to her, and didn't know. Maybe she's unaware that it's possible he contracted the virus from another partner only a short time prior to their Trysts, in which he probably wouldn't be showing any symptoms yet. I guess the only way to prove that he knew he had it was to look through his medical records and see if he's on any meds for it. But I'm not sure if that's even legal to do so.

[jiminnm]

I get it that it's possible this "celebrity" may have contracted the virus, showed no signs of it, gave it to her, and didn't know. Maybe she's unaware that it's possible he contracted the virus from another partner only a short time prior to their Trysts, in which he probably wouldn't be showing any symptoms yet. I guess the only way to prove that he knew he had it was to look through his medical records and see if he's on any meds for it. But I'm not sure if that's even legal to do so.

The allegation of known or should have known in this lawsuit is pretty standard in a tort claim. If the plaintiff states only that the defendant knew, then they have to prove he knew. If they claim that he should have known, then that raises the the question of what a reasonable person would have done in the defendant's position. Did he previously have sex with someone known to have the herpes or otherwise put himself into the position [[no pun intended) of contracting it? Did he have symptoms but chose not to be tested? Did he have symptoms but simply ignored them or was ignorant of their meaning when generally available knowledge would have indicated otherwise?

Whether or not his medical records are admissible will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific allegations of the plaintiff made and the specific defenses the defendant raises.