BEHR v. REDMOND Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>BEHR v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><b >BEHR v. </b><b >REDMOND</b><b ></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/2/11; pub. order 3/14/11 (see end of opn.) <br/> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><b ></b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >DIVISION TWO</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/>PATRICIA BEHR, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent, <br/> <br/>v. <br/> <br/>THOMAS REDMOND, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Appellant. <br/> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> E048333 <br/> <br/> (Super.Ct.No. INC052881) <br/> <br/> O P I N I O N <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….</b> <br/> <br/> <br/>B. <i >Waiver of Argument That Special Verdict Omitted Question Concerning the</i> <i >Timing of Behr's Infection</i> <br/> Redmond argues the judgment must be reversed because the special verdict form was ambiguous as to when Behr contracted herpes from Redmond; that is, it fails to specify whether the infection occurred before or after his February 12, 2004, disclosure. Instead, the jury was asked generally whether Behr became infected with genital herpes from Redmond, without any reference to the timing of the infection. <br/> Initially, we note the failure to specify the timing of the infection appears to be significant only if Behr was required to prove she contracted herpes prior to the February 12, 2004, disclosure. As we explained above, however, the evidence was sufficient to find Redmond breached his duty of care toward Behr, and that he concealed the risk of contagion, regardless of when he transmitted the virus. Contrary to Redmond's assertion, Redmond could still be liable for a postdisclosure infection under the circumstances in this case because, after disclosing the disease, he told Behr it would be okay to have sex. <br/> In addition, we agree with Behr that Redmond has waived this alleged defect in the special verdict form. The rules are well-settled. â€