http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/frequentlyAskedQuestions.cfm

Begin here…..

Oh, my god, you read this: of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence” and you think that means “crime of omission”? That’s just so stupidly wrong I don’t know where to begin.

As to charging him for getting on the plane in Atlanta, it’s my understanding that he wasn’t aware of the contagiousness of his TB until he got to Europe. You couldn’t charge him for criminal negligence until he was aware that being on the plane could harm others.

Otherwise, you’d be arresting everyone who gets on a plane who has TB. And I’m thinking, that idea wouldn’t go down to well on a Jules Crittenden website.

Despite warnings from federal health officials not to board another long flight, he flew home for treatment — fearing he wouldn’t survive if he didn’t reach the U.S.

I’m curious what liabilities Speaker faces for his decision to fly knowing he was infected with a very dangerous disease.

Did he violate any federal criminal statute by flying, especially after having been warned not to do so? If so, in addition to any potential criminal liability, he may also face tort suits from anyone he infected while on those flights on a negligence per se theory or, in the alternative, using the statutory violation as prima facie evidence of negligence. Such theores have been used successfully in some states in connection with the transmission of venereal diseases.

If there is no statutory violation on which to hang tort liability, would he be liable anyway? In Tort Liability for Infliction of Venereal Disease, 40 A.L.R.4th 1089, we learn that:

Although there are some contrary decisions, the courts have held the actual or alleged communication of a venereal disease to establish or support a tort cause of action on the grounds of assault and battery, fraud, negligence, seduction, and other or unspecified grounds.

Indeed, transmission and infection may not be necessary for liability in some cases. In 59 A.L.R.5th 535, we learn that:

Since the recognition of AIDS as a distinct condition, courts have had to deal with numerous types of claims involving the disease. One type of claim seeks to recover for damages attributable to a fear of contracting HIV or AIDS. Sometimes plaintiffs assert an independent tort claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress; sometimes plaintiffs identify emotional distress as one type of injury arising from the defendant’s other wrongful conduct such as medical malpractice or battery. Claims based on a fear of contracting AIDS have been brought pursuant to common law and under statute—for example, under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA). “AIDS-phobia” claims are still relatively new to the courts, and this area of the law is still developing, resulting in some inconsistency within jurisdictions as to what is required to support recovery.

But what about a non-venereal disease? From 6 A.L.R.5th 162, we learn:

In Plummer v United States (1978, CA3 Pa) 580 F2d 72 (applying Pennsylvania law), Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671 et seq.) litigation, prisoners impacted by tubercle bacilli were held entitled to damages for mental suffering for their fear of having contracted active tuberculosis or of transmitting it to others in the future.

If prisoners can recover, surely passengers can. Right? Any tort law experts know the answer for sure? (Also, any tort law experts know of a theory on which the airline could be held liable?) Certainly, it seems likely that the exposed passengers are suffering emotional distress:

Laney Wiggins, said she is awaiting her skin test results, expected Friday. “I’m very nervous,” Wiggins told The (Columbia) State newspaper. “It’s kind of sad that this is overshadowing the wonderful time we had in Europe.”

Who can blame her? Speaker’s conduct was selfish, narcissistic, and wholly lacking in regard for others.

Georgia doesn’t appear to have a legal ethics under which Speaker could get in trouble. Nothing seems to address “conduct unbecoming” or “conduct that brings the proession into disrepute,” at least outside the context of representation of a client. OTOH, if Speaker is convicted of any felony or “a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude where the underlying conduct relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law,” he could be disbarred on those grounds.

Posted on May 31, 2007 in Law – General | Permalink

There again, if you read and can comprehend, of an act or omission to act and intention or criminal negligence..

ANY immaturity comes from you. I present fact, you move the “goalposts”.

Criminal negligence is plausible, especially after he was informed in Europe of the nature of his TB. Problem, though, is that his actions occurred from Europe to Canada, so you could only get him on the portion of his trip from the time he crossed the border into the US and then was taken into custody.