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.
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.
I agree. At issue here isn't that she said anything about her son's HIV status, it's that she knowingly lied
about it to her son's fiancé. It's like fishin' said, they should have told her to ask their son and stay out of it altogether. I find it VERY irresponsible that his parents responded in the way they did.
Personally, if I was that young woman, I would have asked the son to be tested and to see his results, rather than rely on what his parents would say. If he backed away from doing so, that would be a telling indicator right there.
As Jespah said, it's a sad situation all way around.