Quote Originally Posted by artds View Post
No. They're arguing that as a legal matter a tort was committed irrespective of whether he had actual knowledge that he had the disease, since he should have had actual knowledge that he had it, and that if he didn't, that was negligence on his part.
You need proof he gave it to her and not the other way around. Where's the proof of this "tort"? You need proof for it to be a legal matter. There's no reference to a registry or prior victims. Nothing. There's no negligence if there's no proof he had it prior or knew he had it prior. Without proof, the only tort here is libel.