Yulia Forest Kohl v. Norman Dean Kohl, Jr.
149 So. 3d 127
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Florida Fourth District Court considers whether negligent transmission of a sexually transmitted disease (STD) can be pleaded under common law in Florida.
- Circuit court dismissed the negligence count with prejudice for failing to track the language of §384.24, Florida Statutes (2013).
- Former wife alleged HPV transmission during marriage and alleged defendant’s knowledge or exposure based on high-risk behavior and prior hysterectomy of ex-wife.
- Court holds HPV transmission can be analyzed under common-law negligence, but affirmance rests on lack of knowledge allegations showing actual knowledge of infection.
- Court rejects Gabriel v. Tripp’s strict tracking of §384.24 as the sole basis for liability and holds §384.24 evidence of negligence, not the exclusive elements of the tort.
- Decision: common-law negligence recognition affirmed, but complaint fails to plead actual knowledge of HPV by the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent transmission of an STD can sound in Florida common law | Kohl argues a common-law negligence theory is available. | Kohl contends liability requires tracking §384.24 language. | Yes in principle, but not here due to lack of knowledge allegations. |
| Whether §384.24 tracking is required to state such a claim | Tracking §384.24 is not necessary to plead negligence. | Strictly track §384.24 to state a cognizable claim. | Tracking not mandatory; but statute does not alone establish the claim here. |
| What knowledge standard applies to HPV in a negligent-transmission claim | Constructive knowledge may suffice to impose duty. | Only actual knowledge of infection should support liability for HPV. | Actual knowledge is required for HPV-based liability. |
| Did the complaint allege the defendant had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of HPV | Allegations show exposure and high-risk behavior imply knowledge. | Allegations do not show actual knowledge of infection or transmission risk. | Allegations insufficient; no basis for liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabriel v. Tripp, 576 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (held statutes may provide prima facie evidence but not exclusive elements of negligence)
- Endres v. Endres, 968 A.2d 336 (Vt. 2008) (constructive knowledge may be required for STD liability; actual knowledge often needed for HPV)
- John B. v. Superior Court, 137 P.3d 153 (Cal. 2006) (discusses knowledge requirements for HIV liability)
- Knight v. Merhige, 133 So.3d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (public policy and duty in negligence; foreseeability)
- Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.2d 914 (Fla. 1990) (duty is an allocation of risk balancing foreseeability and burden)
- Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (discusses transmission of herpes and duty of care in context of intimate relationships)