Court Opinion

ID: 9563218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:37:48.899286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:46.803480
License: Public Domain

SILAK, Acting Judge,
specially concurring:
I write to concur specially in section II C of the majority opinion, and concur fully in the remainder of the opinion.
While I agree that the elements of battery and more specifically that of consent were properly stated by the majority in section II C, I disagree with the essential character (or nature) analysis under the consent prong. In my view the majority should follow the rule stated in RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 892B(2):
Consent Under Mistake, Misrepresentation or Duress
(2) If the person consenting to the conduct of another is induced to consent by a substantial mistake concerning the nature of the invasion of his interests or the extent of the harm to be expected from it and the mistake is known to the other or is induced by the other’s misrepresentation, the consent is not effective for the unexpected invasion or harm.
Applying this general rule to the facts here, Mrs. Neal gave her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband based upon her understanding that he was faithful within the marriage and thus not exposing either himself or his wife to the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Mrs. Neal might have been substantially mistaken as to the nature of the extent of harm to be expected from her sexual relationship with her husband if he had actually been exposed to an STD. Dr. Neal knew of the “mistake,” since he alone knew about his sexual relationship outside the marriage and did not reveal it to Mrs. Neal (at least before certain of the acts of sexual intercourse).
However, the record before us reflects that, fortunately and fortuitously, neither Mrs. Neal nor her ex-husband tested positive for any STD, including the HIV virus. I concur specially in the result, therefore, because I believe that only where the complaining spouse is actually exposed to an STD does there exist the type of “substantial mis*637take” that would vitiate the consent to sexual relations. As the majority states in a different context in section II B above, the “standard of actual exposure ... ensures that there exists a rational, non-speculative basis” for the assertion of an invasion of a protected interest.