Hogan v Tavzel
Citation: 660 So. 2d 350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995)
Parties:
- Hogan (plaintiff)
- Tavzel (defendant)
Facts:
- The parties were married and going through some issues; during a period of attempted reconciliation, Tavzel gave Hogan an STD. Tavzel knew he had an STD and never told Hogan about it, nor did he take precaution against infecting her.
Procedural History:
- Tavzel moved to dismiss, and the motion was denied. He appealed.
Issue:
- Is consent a defense for infecting someone with an STD?
Rule:
- A cause of action in battery will lie, and consent will be ineffective, if the consenting person was mistaken about the nature and quality of the invasion intended.
Holding:
- No, consent is not a defense when the other person wasn’t aware of the STD.
Reasoning:
- Similar cases in other jurisdictions came to this conclusion as well. Hogans consent, without knowledge of the STD, was fraudulently induced consent which is equivalent to no consent at all.
Decision:
- Motion to dismiss not granted, Hogan will be able to collect damages.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. This case brief and the others on this website are based solely on my personal understanding of the underlying case. They emphasize the points that my law professors emphasized. You should use them merely as a supplement to your own studies.