John Doe v. Mary Moe: No duty of reasonable in care in the bedroom
Eugene Volokh and Bob Ambrogi report on a Massachusetts Appeals Court decision that upholds the trend away from governmental regulation of consensual sexual conduct.
Instead, Ambrogi notes, in John Doe v. Mary Moe the court recommends that "adults engaged in consensual sexual behavior should be held to a standard that requires them not to engage in wanton or reckless conduct toward each other." Combine those two sentences and what do you get? This important footnote: "We do not imply that this [trend away from gov't regulation] is applicable in cases alleging the negligent transmission of a sexually transmitted disease ..."
Volokh makes a number of interesting comments about negligence versus recklessness, writing,
"The court went on to say that reckless sexual conduct -- involving "voluntary taking of risk" and "indifference to consequences" -- might be actionable, but merely negligent (i.e., careless) conduct in which a defendant simply "did not think about possible injury to the plaintiff" is not.
"Seems like the right decision to me."
Find out why he thinks so here.
Posted by Laurel Newby on May 17, 2005 at 08:27 AM | Permalink
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John Doe v. Mary Moe: No duty of reasonable in care in the bedroom: