Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:35:42.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicting Rights of Privacy and the Duty of Disclosure Between Sexual Partners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Roger L. Kohn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although only historians in the future will know, it appears that non-marital and unconventional sexual relations between individuals today are on the increase. One of the more notable landmarks of this trend is the case, Marvin v. Marvin, in which the court recognized the rights of unmarried cohabitants. Individuals now seek wider legal recognition of a variety of interpersonal relationships and, by so doing, are rejecting the limitations of society's traditional agreement, marriage.

This article examines a small subset of the legal interactions and consequences when individuals establish non-marital relationships. Two types of situations and cases will be examined—“reluctant paternity” and the transmission of herpes simplex disease. These may turn out to be unimportant legal curiosities, but they are useful for examining the conflict of rights of privacy and duties of disclosure (right to information) in intimate (here, sexual) interactions between two people. The cases to be examined in detail are in areas of great flux, where a court in one state cites to recently overturned decisions in another state's courts.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , December 1983 , pp. 264 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar
Goodman, E., Reluctant Paternity — A Case Waiting to Happen Happens, Los Angeles Times, November 13, 1981, §II, at 7, col. 1.Google Scholar
Pamela P. v. Frank S., 443 N.Y.S.2d 343, 346 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1981) (misconstruing Aghnides v. Aghnides, 127 N.E.2d 323 (N.Y. 1955)), reversed on other grounds, 451 N.Y.S.2d 766, modified, 456 N.Y.S.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982), affirmed, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. 1983).Google Scholar
Aghnides v. Aghnides, 127 N.E.2d 323 (N.Y. 1955) (annulment not granted despite wife's premarital intentions not to procreate because husband's knowing cohabitation with wife condoned this).Google Scholar
Cal. Civ. Code §§4425(f), 4426(f) (West 1972 & Supp. 1982). But note that incapacity has been variously interpreted as an inability to bear children. See, e.g., Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (Cal. 1859). See also Millar v. Millar, 167 P. 394, 396 (Cal. 1917) (mere ability to copulate).Google Scholar
Although the statute does not specify consent at the time of the marriage as a defense to annulment, it does speak of the “injured party.” Cal. Civ. Code §4426(f) (West Supp. 1982). Surely, a party knowing of the other's incapacity cannot later become injuredGoogle Scholar
Pauling, L., Foreword: Reflections on the New Biology, UCLA Law Review 15(2): 267, 269 (1968).Google Scholar
Pamela P. v. Frank S., 443 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Pamela P.]. See also Margolick D.M., Paternity Suit Focuses on Feminism and Freedom, New York Times, November 6, 1981, at B1, col. 1; Goodman E., Reluctant Paternity — A Case Waiting to Happen Happens, Los Angeles Times, November 13, 1981, §II, at 7, col. I; Margolick D.M., Serpico in Court, New York Times, May 23, 1982, at §1, p. 28, col. 2.Google Scholar
Pamela P., supra note 8, at 343.Google Scholar
Fournier v. Lopez (Cal. App. May 2, 1979), reported in Sexual Law Reporter 5:73 (1979).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cal Civ. Code §§242, 4700 (West 1972 & Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
Stephen K. v. Roni L., 164 Cal. Rptr. 618, 619 (Cal. App. 1980) [hereinafter referred to as Stephen K.].Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 620.Google Scholar
Id. at 621, citing Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485–86 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 435, 453–55 (1972).Google Scholar
Cal. Civ. Code §§1572 (deceit), 1573 (fraud), 1709 (damages for deceit) (West 1972 & Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
Pamela, P., supra note 8, at 344.Google Scholar
Id. at 346, citing Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684–91 (1976); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 448–49 (1972).Google Scholar
Stephen, K., supra note 14, at 619.Google Scholar
Pamela, P., supra note 8, at 347.Google Scholar
Id. at 345.Google Scholar
Id. at 345, citing Boden v. Boden, 366 N.E.2d 791 (N.Y. 1977).Google Scholar
Pamela P. v. Frank S., 451 N.Y.S.2d 766, 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982), affirmed, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 820 (N.Y. 1983).Google Scholar
451 N.Y.S.2d at 767, citing Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965).Google Scholar
Inez M. v. Nathan G., 451 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 609.Google Scholar
Alice D. v. William M., 450 N.Y.S.2d 350, 351 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 355.Google Scholar
See Fournier v. Lopez, supra note 10, and accompanying text.Google Scholar
Hughes v. Hutt, 455 A.2d 623 (Pa. 1983).Google Scholar
Id. at 625.Google Scholar
Barbara A. v. John G., 193 Cal. Rptr. 422, 426–27 (Cal. App. 1983).Google Scholar
Id. at 429.Google Scholar
Id. at 429–30.Google Scholar
Id. at 428.Google Scholar
Id., citing Dillon v. Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Cal. 1938).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69 (1975). See also In re S.P.B., 651 P.2d 1213 (Colo. 1982) (father's child support duty unaffected by his offer to fund abortion; court inquiry into any prior agreement of this nature between parties represents unconscionable governmental interference with privacy rights).Google Scholar
See Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (Petersdorf, R.G., eds.) (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York) (1983) at 889-901 (detailing the “new generation” of sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes).Google Scholar
Id. Traditional definition of sexually transmitted disease refers to gonorrhea, syphilis, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum, and granuloma inguinale.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code §1714 (West 1978) (responsibility for wilful acts and negligence); Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561, 564 (Cal. 1968) (”all persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others being injured as the result of their conduct”).Google Scholar
State codes in California, New York, and Florida were searched. But see cases cited at Crowell v. Crowell, 105 S.E. 206,208 (N.C. 1920) “[I]t is a well settled proposition of law that a person is liable if he negligently exposes another to a contagious or infectious disease.” Id. Such cases should be distinguished from suits by individuals against health care organizations such as for hepatitis-contaminated blood. See, e.g., Note, Strict Liability— The Medical Service immunity and Blood Transfusions in California, University of California at Davis Law Review 7: 196 (1974); Greenbaum, H., Current Standards of Practice in Medicine: The Medical, Judicial, and Legislative Roles, Western State Law Review 7(1): 3, 4 (1979).Google Scholar
For early actions for infections by venereal disease, see De Vail v. Strunk, 96 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936) (holding that there is a cause of action for fraudulent promise to marry and for consequential damages of infection with “crabs”; Crowell v. Crowell, 105 S.E. 206 (N.C. 1920) (wife may maintain action against husband for infection by venereal disease); State v. Lankford, 102 A. 63 (Del. 1917) (assault and battery for man to conceal syphilis from his wife and infect her). See also Prosser, W., Handbook on the Law of Torts (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.) (1971) at 105 [hereinafter referred to as Law of Torts].Google Scholar
See, e.g., Martinez, A., Fights Social Disease, Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1982, §V, at 1, col. 1; Goodman, E., The Wrong Reason to Say No, Washington Post, October 16, 1982, at A15, col. 1; Russell, B. Sussman, B., Sexual Revolution Shows: Singles Say Herpes Makes Them Think Twice, Washington Post, October 11, 1982, at A1, col. 5; Graham, N., Woman to Appeal Rejection of Suit on Herpes Infection, Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1983, §IX, at 1, col. 1 (Westside ed.); Will, G., Herpes, an Epidemic in the Courtroom, Los Angeles Times, February 24, 1983, §II, at 7, col. 1.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Box, T., Promising Herpes Treatment Developed, Los Angeles Times, December 16, 1982, §I-B, at 6, col. 1.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Altman, L.K., The Doctor's World: Is the Alarm over Herpes Excessive? New York Times, November 2, 1982, at C3, col. 1; Box, T., Herpes Sufferers Fight the Stigma, Los Angeles Times, December 27, 1982, §V, at 16, col. 1.Google Scholar
Keating v. Bolander, No. WEC 72582 (Los Angeles County Superior Ct., Cal. March 25, 1983) (mem. op.). See also Graham, supra note 45.Google Scholar
Complaint of Plaintiff, Keating v. Bolander, No. WEC 72582 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct., Cal. March 25, 1983).Google Scholar
See Graham, supra note 45.Google Scholar
See Stephen, K., supra note 14.Google Scholar
Keating v. Bolander, supra note 48, at 2 (mem. op.).Google Scholar
Telephone conversation with Pollack, Barry A., attorney for the plaintiff (April 18, 1983).Google Scholar
Liptrot v. Basini, No. 82-19427 (Broward County Cir., Fla. filed September 20, 1983), reported in Mellowitz, J. Rohas, N., Herpes: A Cause for Legal Action? National Law Journal, November 8, 1982, at 3, col. 3.Google Scholar
See Will, supra note 45.Google Scholar
Cal. Pen. Code §647(b) (West Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
For humorous treatment of this issue, see Standard Form of One Night Stand Prospective Lovers’ Agreement for Individuals, Beverly Hills Bar Journal 12: 231 (1978).Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§201.295, 201.440 (1981). Prostitution is not even there universally legal. See, e.g., City of Reno v. Forrest, 479 P.2d 465 (Nev. 1971) (prostitution illegal in Reno); Nev. Rev. Stat. §244.345 (1981).Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§126.031, 126.241, 126.261 (1981).Google Scholar
Keating v. Bolander, supra note 48, at 3 (mem. op.), citing Stephen, K., supra note 14, at 619.Google Scholar
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Update — United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 32(24): 309–11 (June 24, 1983); Speck, W.T., Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, Journal of Pediatrics 103(2): 161–63 (July 1983); Francis, D.P., Epidemic Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: Epidemiologic Evidence for a Transmissible Agent, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 71 (1): 1–4 (July 1983); Henig, R.M., AIDS: A New Disease's Deadly Odyssey, New York Times, February 6, 1983, §6 (magazine), at 28.Google Scholar
Prevention of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS): Report of Inter-Agency Recommendations, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 32: 101 (1983).Google Scholar
Henig, supra note 61, at 44.Google Scholar
Gelden, , Death in the Family, Rolling Stone, p. 18 (February 3, 1983).Google Scholar
Henig, supra note 61, at 38–42.Google Scholar
Id. at 36.Google Scholar
Law of Torts, supra note 44, at 190–204. In California, the violation of a statute designed to protect a given class of persons from a given harm, and which causes that harm, creates the presumption of negligence. Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School Dist., 177 P.2d 279, 283 (Cal. 1947).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§3000–3507 (West 1979 & Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§3001, 3198, 3353 (West 1979).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§3198, 3353 (West 1979).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code §3001 (West 1979).Google Scholar
1937 Cal. Stat. 2249.Google Scholar
Merck Manual (Holvey, D., ed.) (Merck & Co., Rahway, N.J.) (12th ed. 1972) at 1529.Google Scholar
Id. at 33.Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. Ann. §§384.01, 384.02 (West 1973).Google Scholar
Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 16, §1399.582(c) (1980 & 1982).Google Scholar
N.Y. Pub. Health Law §2311 (McKinney Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
39A C.J.S., Health & Environment §48 (1976 & Supp. 1982).Google Scholar
Margolick, D.M., Paternity Suit Focuses on Feminism and Freedom, New York Times, November 6, 1981, at B6, col. 2.Google Scholar
Margolick, D.M., Serpico in Court, New York Times, May 23, 1982 §1, at 28, col. 2.Google Scholar
Graham, , supra note 45, at 10, col. 1.Google Scholar
Law of Torts, supra note 44, at 445.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Roe v. Doe, 272 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1971).Google Scholar
Klein v. Klein, 376 P.2d 70 (Cal. 1962) (negligence); Self v. Self, 376 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1962) (intentional tort).Google Scholar
Cal. Evid. Code §§970–972(a), 980–982 (West 1966 & Supp. 1983).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Cal. Pen. Code §262 (West Supp. 1983). See Note, Marital Rape in California: For Better or for Worse, San Fernando Valley Law Review 8: 239, 241 (1980). See also Barbara A. v. John G., supra note 34.Google Scholar
Oregon Husband is Found Not Guilty in Rape Trial, Family Law Reporter (BNA) 5: 2164 (1979).Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. Freud, A. Solnit, A., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (Free Press, New York, N.Y.) (1979) at 7.Google Scholar
People v. Sorenson, 437 P.2d 495, 500 (Cal. 1968).Google Scholar
C.M. v. C.C., 152 N.J. Super. 160, 168 (N.J. 1977) (it is not clear whether the donor could have avoided the duty by avoiding a claim for visitation rights).Google Scholar
Cal. Civ. Code §229 (West 1982); O'Connell v. O'Connell, 146 Cal. Rptr. 26, 31 (Cal. App. 1978); Younger v. Younger, 39 P. 779, 780 (Cal. 1895); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law §117 (McKinney 1977).Google Scholar
See, e.g., In re Hunsicker, 223 P. 411, 412 (Cal. Dist. App. 1923); Betz v. Horr, 11 N.E.2d 548, 550 (N.Y. 1937).Google Scholar
Curlender v. Bioscience Laboratories, 165 Cal. Rptr. 477 (Cal. App. 1980) (dicta).Google Scholar
Cal. Civ. Code §43.7 (West 1982). The status of the wrongful life cause of action is unclear in California. Turpin v. Sortini, 643 P.2d 954 (Cal. 1982).Google Scholar
Venus B. v. Danillo S., 446 N.Y.S.2d 894, 896 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 897.Google Scholar
Inez M. v. Nathan G., supra note 27, at 611, citing 1935 N.Y. Laws ch. 263, §1.Google Scholar
See Barbara A. v. John G., supra note 34, and accompanying text.Google Scholar
Comment, Paternity Testing with the Human Leukocyte Antigen System, Santa Clara Law Review 20: 511 (1980); Comment, Domestic Relations, Pacific Law Journal 13:669 (1982).Google Scholar
Cramer v. Morrison, 153 Cal. Rptr. 865 (Cal. App. 1979) (judicial acceptance of HLA as evidence of paternity); Cal. Evid. Code §895 (West Supp. 1983) (1981 codification of Cramer v. Morrison).Google Scholar
Sindeil v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924, 936–37 (Cal. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912 (1980).Google Scholar
607 P.2d at 936–37.Google Scholar
Comment, Domestic Relations, Pacific Law Journal 13:669 (1982); Shults v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. Rptr. 297, 299 (Cal. App. 1980).Google Scholar
170 Cal. Rptr. at 299–300; Kremin v. Graham, 318 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1982).Google Scholar
Wharton, , San Bernardino Approves Controversial VD Test Law, Los Angeles Times, September 21, 1982, §1, at 1, col. 4.Google Scholar
Colen, , Is There Death after Sex? Rolling Stone, p. 17 (February 3, 1983).Google Scholar
Posner, R.A., The Right of Privacy, Georgia Law Review 12(3): 393, 397 (Spring 1978).Google Scholar
Rushevsky, , Legal Recognition of Surrogate Gestation, Women's Rights Law Reporter 7: 107, 142 (1982).Google Scholar
Morrow, , Social Diseases and Marriage (1904) at 51, quoted in Bok, S., Lying (Vintage Books, New York) (1979) at 154–55.Google Scholar
Bok, S., Secrets (Pantheon Books, New York) (1983) at 120.Google Scholar