Should parents pay when their son spreads AIDS?

Acquiunk wrote:

What I do not understand is why did the judge ever let this go to trial? Presumably he was knowledgable enough in the law to know that for a third party to reveal private medical information in that state was against the law.

But she did disclose. If she had been asked and said "You'll have to ask him" the law should have protected her because she's prohibited from disclosing.

That's an interesting point fishin, why is his mother prohibited from disclosing his infection to prevent his girlfriend from being sentenced to certain death?

I didn't know there was such a thing as mother/son confidentiality clause?

Illinois AIDS confidentiality law is stricter than in most states, Fisher said. While some states only prohibit medical personnel from disclosing people's HIV status, Illinois' law applies to "any person."

kickycan wrote:

The disclosure part has nothing to do with it, IMO. The kid having AIDS is like a person having a lethal weapon. If a woman asks your mother if you have a gun in your pocket and you say no, does that mean your mother is responsible for you killing that person? No way. That is ridiculous.

Fishin' is right: if Jane Doe asks Mom "does you son have a gun in his pocket," and Mom knows not only that Son has a gun but that he intends to use it to shoot Doe, her unqualified "no" may induce reliance on Doe's part that would be actionable. In other words, if it is reasonable for Doe to rely on Mom's answer, and Doe does rely on it to her detriment, then Mom is responsible for the damages that Doe suffers as a result of that reliance.

In this particular case, Mom was arguably under a legal duty not to disclose her son's condition (I don't read the Illinois AIDS Confidentiality Act to require this, but I'm not an expert in this area). But, as was pointed out in the story, she was not thereby under an obligation to lie about her son's condition, especially if she knew that Jane Doe would rely on her answer.