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

[jiminnm]

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.

In a tort case, you need a preponderance of evidence [[often cited as 51% more likely than unlikely) to prove your case. Without direct evidence, such as the defendant here having provable knowledge of his condition, the reasonable person standard leaves much open to circumstantial evidence and an assessment of what a reasonable person should have known and should have done.

[artds]

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.

"Proof" in this instance is whatever a jury deems to be more probable than not. The defendant will be deposed. If he had prior knowledge of his condition, or if he ever sought medication or diagnosis, then he will either have to admit it, or he will have to commit perjury by lying under oath. The defendant will also be required to disclose prior sexual partners to the plaintiff, and they too will be interviewed and possibly deposed by the plaintiff's attorneys.

[davewindsor]

In a tort case, you need a preponderance of evidence [[often cited as 51% more likely than unlikely) to prove your case. Without direct evidence, such as the defendant here having provable knowledge of his condition, the reasonable person standard leaves much open to circumstantial evidence and an assessment of what a reasonable person should have known and should have done.

Preponderance of what evidence? No evidence was presented. Name a case that backs up someone having to pay 75 ginos in a herpes lawsuit where the plaintiff hasn't provided a shred of evidence proving the defendant gave them herpes and not the other way around.

[davewindsor]

"Proof" in this instance is whatever a jury deems to be more probable than not. The defendant will be deposed. If he had prior knowledge of his condition, or if he ever sought medication or diagnosis, then he will either have to admit it, or he will have to commit perjury by lying under oath. The defendant will also be required to disclose prior sexual partners to the plaintiff, and they too will be interviewed and possibly deposed by the plaintiff's attorneys.

Why would a judge allow a juried trial without evidence? The defendant's lawyer will bring forth a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence plus costs.

Come on, think about it. If the defendant really is a sex offender wanting to spread diseases and has lied to the plaintiff's face about it, why would he suddenly have a change of heart and admit his wrong doing to a judge so he loses the case? Are you telling me people don't ever lie under oath?

Assuming he doesn't have multiple doctors [[being that he's a rich celebrity) and told the judge the correct doctor he actually confided his sickness to, how do you subpeona a doctor across state lines if he lives in California and the suit is brought forth in Michigan?

If the defendant is a pathological liar and says he hasn't had any sexual partners in the past several years, now what? Case dismissed.

[Honky Tonk]

I just want to jump in and say this is one of the most interesting threads I've read here and I'm really enjoying reading everyone's comments. Please continue.

[artds]

Preponderance of what evidence? No evidence was presented. Name a case that backs up someone having to pay 75 ginos in a herpes lawsuit where the plaintiff hasn't provided a shred of evidence proving the defendant gave them herpes and not the other way around.

you're completely ignoring the role of the jury here. most cases involve the jury making inferences based on the facts presented. evidence can be direct or indirect. In a case like this, in order to survive summary judgment [[a pre-verdict judgment in the defendan't favor) or a 12[[b)[[6) motion [[a motion to dismiss for failure to present sufficient evidence), it would be enough for the plaintiff to show that both parties have the disease, and that they had intercourse. Now for liability, while it would certainly be helpful to the plaintiff's case if she could provide medical proof that she did not have the disease before the encounter, and that the defendant did have it before the encounter, it isnt necessary. Liability can depend on something as simple as how credible the jury finds the parties' respective testimony.

In any event, the case was just filed and hasn't even entered the discovery phase. The defendant's medical history will be obtained via interrogatories, document requests, subpoenas and depositions, and any evidence uncovered during that process that tends to prove or disprove any necessary element of the alleged tort will become evidence in the case.

Regarding your question about how a federal court sitting in Michigan goes about getting non-Michigan residents to comply with its orders, there's a legal mechanism known as a "letter rogatory" that courts use to accomplish this.

[davewindsor]

you're completely ignoring the role of the jury here. most cases involve the jury making inferences based on the facts presented. evidence can be direct or indirect. In a case like this, in order to survive summary judgment [[a pre-verdict judgment in the defendan't favor) or a 12[[b)[[6) motion [[a motion to dismiss for failure to present sufficient evidence), it would be enough for the plaintiff to show that both parties have the disease, and that they had intercourse.

The media blitz surrounding the herpes epidemic started in the 1970s, so show me the relevant case precedents where it survived just under these circumstances.

Liability can depend on something as simple as how credible the jury finds the parties' respective testimony.

Which would easily be grounds for an appeal to an unjuried appellate court.

In any event, the case was just filed and hasn't even entered the discovery phase. The defendant's medical history will be obtained via interrogatories, document requests, subpoenas and depositions, and any evidence uncovered during that process that tends to prove or disprove any necessary element of the alleged tort will become evidence in the case.

I'm betting that this rich celebrity would hire an expensive lawyer that would be advising his client on how to make the discovery fact finding process virtually useless for the plaintiff.

[Dan Wesson]

Maybe it's a case of my Lawyers bigger than your lawyer.

More than likely Mr Big was advised it was cheaper to pay the plaintiff than the Lawyer and resulting tabloid exposure.

What if 75 grand to Mr. Big was just a drop in the bucket?

[Vic01]

Secrecy continues to surround a bizarre lawsuit involving an unnamed woman suing an unnamed celebrity for allegedly giving her genital herpes in Royal Oak last summer.
For some unknown reason, the woman from Michigan dropped the lawsuit, one day after filing it in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
In a one-sentence explanation filed Tuesday, the mystery plaintiff wrote that she "voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice."
Her lawyer, Roseville attorney Cynthia Merry, did not return several calls for comment. A person who answered the phone at her home said "she is not going to comment" and asked that no one call back.


http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015...-oak/76693546/

all the fun of discussing the case for another 20 posts aside... As I posted last Thursday, the woman dropped it, done deal, there is no case.