can a judge order someone to get tested for herpes?
or any std for that matter? for instance, if someone (personA) got herpes and they were pretty sure they knew who they got it from, but that other person (personB) doesnt want to show any proof that they do or dont have it, can personaA take personB to court and have them issue an order to get tested?
this question is just out of curiosity because of celebrity drama i follow. dont get any ideas just because im anonymous
- TavyLv 71 month ago
No way in the U.K.,
- Lab GuyLv 61 month ago
You would have to post in a legal forum for that answer. You would have to prove that the herpes status of the defendant is material to the case vs too prejudicial to present to the court. Just because somebody has herpes does not mean that they were the ones who gave them herpes when 20% of the population has genital herpes. Having herpes doesn't prove that they speciically gave them herpes so the judge might not allow it.
Maybe they had sex after having sex with the defendant. It's up to the plaintiff to present their case based on the circumstances that the defendant was the most likely candidate that gave them herpes and that the defendant did not inform the plaintiff about their herpes status. One can argue that A) The defendant did not know they had herpes or B) The assumed risk rule that it was consensual sex without protection thus one assumes the risk of such behavior which is an STD with or without talking about sexual histories and conditions. The other C) The defendant can claim they informed the plaintiff that they had herpes but proceeded anyways.
In either case the plaintiff would have to prove reckless disregard of risk by not disclosing herpes status and proving in civil court the standard of prove being "the preponderance of the evidence" that they were the ones who did it and not somebody else.