Posted on 05/18/2005 11:40:20 AM PDT by JBW
A Massachusetts court has recently had to resolve the question, as a matter of tort law, what duty of care a pair of non-married adults owe to each other for injuries resulting from consensual sex between them.
I'll leave the details of the case for those with strong stomachs who are willing to read the opinion found in the preceding link. In summary, however, the plaintiff (male) was injured when the defendant (female) changed her position during the middle of intercourse.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that, as a matter of law, there was no applicable standard of care between two consenting adults engaged in sex. Consequently, one of those adults could not be liable for negligence in connection with injuries suffered by the second adult.
The Massachusetts appellate court affirmed the trial court's holding, but declined to support its rationale that there was no duty of care. Instead, the appellate court reasoned:
"Whether persons involved in consensual sexual relations owe each other a legal duty of reasonable care in the conduct of those relations is a question of first impression in Massachusetts. Generally, as the plaintiff claims, tort law requires that a duty of reasonable care be exercised to avoid injury to others.
* * *
Since "[t]he essence of wanton or reckless conduct is intentional conduct . . . which . . . involves a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another," Commonwealth v. Welansky, supra, citing Restatement of Torts § 500 (1934), we believe that a fact finder is capable of recognizing such extreme conduct, impartially and without prejudice, even in the context of consensual sexual behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanbwilson.com ...
>In summary, however, the plaintiff (male) was injured when the defendant (female) changed her position during the middle of intercourse.
No comment.
Changed her position on what? Paper or plastic?
does that include six-year olds who die from lesbian fisting?
Sex is no fun unles it's wanton and reckless.
What do they want? Carefully planned and choreographed with safety precautions?
They used to call the "safety precaution" "marriage".
But, yes, they want everything carefully planned. Apparently you missed the college that asked students to get explicit permission from their partner that it was OK to continue at each step of a sexual encounter to make sure that consent was given for everything that was done. I expect some colleges to distribute consent forms that have to be signed first one of these days...
sounds like John F-n Kerry... I was for it before I was against it...
the worst part of this whole story... two words... 'penile fracture'... OUCH!
There are of course. . .'horses of a different color'. . .and maybe that explains it. . .
This is the end of gay sex in MA.
I'm beginning to think the Massachusetts courts are obsessed with sex. Don't those people have any other issues to deal with?
Or at least have a spotter.
Here's a link to the case he mentioned: http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/coa/1108105.htm
JOHN DOE[1] vs. MARY MOE.[2]
[1] A pseudonym.
[2] A pseudonym.
All I can say is OUCH!
I see the court documents says he suffered a "penile fracture". What? A real bone?
How many of you immediately tracked back through the links to read the "details of the case for those with strong stomachs"?
(raises hand) OW!
""Whether persons involved in consensual sexual relations owe each other a legal duty of reasonable care in the conduct of those relations is a question of first impression in Massachusetts. Generally, as the plaintiff claims, tort law requires that a duty of reasonable care be exercised to avoid injury to others"
Oh its Massachusetts at it again. Lawyers will love this one" Sexual Malpractice Insurance" for everyone? The Pilgrims are rolling in their graves up there!
He thought she was a Republican, and she suddenly announced she was a Democrat, which caused irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Oh, I back tracked immediately.
I love reading about these things in clinical, polite, legalese. My favorite:
"...for purposes of increasing her stimulation.."
Geez, if I sued for every injury I've incurred at the hands of females driven into the throes of intense ecstasy, I could afford to buy an NFL franchise. Just kidding, take it easy! Ouch!
so is MA one of those state (like MI) that the only legal position is missionary? if so, he might have a case.
now my question is, how would this relate to the story i heard a while back about the couple using a loaded gun (which ADed) as a sex toy? is that considered reckless sex?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.