Supreme Court reinstates suit over STD transmission

Thursday, Jan. 13, 2000 | 10:49 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Wednesday reinstated a $15 million suit by a Pahrump woman who sued her ex-boyfriend after she contracted sexually transmitted diseases.

The court said Mary Wilson does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her former lover, Ronald Radcliffe of Las Vegas, transmitted the herpes simplex virus and the human papilloma virus to her during their relationship, which lasted from April 1995 to May 1996.

District Judge Gene Porter had dismissed the complaint in favor of Radcliffe, saying Wilson could not prove with reliable scientific evidence that only Radcliffe could have infected her.

According to the suit, a month before the couple split, Wilson first had severe itching in her genital area, and four months later she was diagnosed with both diseases.

Wilson maintained she did not have sexual contact with anyone else while she was dating Radcliffe and for three years preceding their relationship. She had made him promise that he was not infected and that he would not have relations with other women. She said Radcliffe lied on both counts.

In January 1998, Wilson filed suit charging battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contact.

Radcliffe, in making a motion to dismiss the suit, argued the latest research concludes that the exact time and source of the viral infections cannot be determined. According to court records, he said that because Wilson cannot, with scientific exactitude, prove that he and no other person infected her with the diseases, her claims must be dismissed.

Radcliffe's attorneys called the suit frivolous. They said 45 million Americans have lifetime cases of herpes and 216 million have the papilloma virus.

The court said the plaintiff "does not bear the burden of completely eliminating the possibility that the defendant's conduct did not cause her injury."

It is sufficient for Wilson, the court said, to introduce evidence "from which reasonable persons may conclude that it was defendant's conduct, more probably than not, that caused her injury.

"In short, a plaintiff does not need to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt."

The court said it may be necessary for Wilson to present expert testimony to explain the nature of the diseases and to testify she was infected, that Radcliffe was a carrier and that Wilson's infection "is consistent with contracting them from Radcliffe."