Court rules family not liable for woman's AIDS

SPRINGFIELD -- A woman whose now-dead fiance infected her with AIDS cannot collect $2 million from his parents for possibly misleading her about their son's health, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices said the infected woman never proved she reasonably relied on the parents in making health decisions. Based on the facts presented, the court said, she should have realized something was amiss and she was at risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease by engaging in unprotected sex with the man.

In addition, the state's high court said the fraud laws under which the case was filed and advanced were never meant to cover personal relationships and should be limited to commercial dealings.

"We are disappointed," Alyssa Campbell, attorney for the woman, said of the ruling. She said the opinion is being reviewed along with what further legal options may be available.

David Novoselky, the attorney for the man's family, said the ruling is crucial because it clarifies that there is a clear distinction between commercial fraud cases and misrepresentations in personal relationships. In short, he said, car dealers who lie about their products should be liable, but extending the same legal duty to personal relationship could quickly get messy.

He did, however, say the situation is a clear tragedy.

"You look at this, you feel horrible for Jane Doe," said Novoselky.

The ruling overturns a $2 million jury award to the woman, whose identity has been kept secret because it's illegal to disclose when someone has HIV or AIDS.

In fact, one of the key questions in the case was whether the parents, if they indeed knew their son had AIDS, had a legal responsibility to tell his fiancee -- or at least not mislead her -- that outweighed their son's legal right to have his HIV status remain confidential.

However, the court said the woman never proved the parents indeed knew all along their son had AIDS and misled her about it.

According to court records, the two met via a personal ad in April 1996. He was 41. She was 44. She'd tested negative for HIV in 1991 as part of an insurance physical. He'd apparently known since 1992 that he was HIV-positive but didn't tell her.

After a few months of dating, they in love, talking of marriage and babies, and first engaged in unprotected sex in August 1996.

That same month, she first noticed her fiance appearing unsteady on his feet. The next month, she experienced flu-like symptoms, often associated with the first onset of HIV infection. She did not go to a doctor.

Over the following months and years, her fiance's health would dramatically worsen while the woman was repeatedly told by his parents, one of whom was a prominent food and drug attorney, that the man was suffering from heavy metal poisoning and, later, Lyme disease. The parents were handling their son's care and paying his bills.

Meanwhile, the woman's health also deteriorated. By 1999, her hair had begun falling out, her gums were bleeding and sores were developing, all of which she attributed to the stress of caring for her ailing fiance.

It wasn't until November 1999 that the woman, at a doctor visit with her fiance, learned that the man she'd been with for more than three years was HIV-positive. He died a month later, and she also tested positive.

Initially, the woman sued her fiance's estate only to find he had nothing. She then sued his parents, claiming their lies caused her infection to remain undetected and untreated.

A Cook County jury held the parents liable and awarded the woman $2 million. An appeals court overturned the verdict. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the jury award should be overturned and went a step further to clarify that fraud laws should not be applied to personal relationships.