Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
Really, why not? Homicide is a crime. Unborn victims act says unborn children are valid victims of such crime. Manslaughter is a homicide. You don't need intent to kill, you just need the show callous disregard for life. Of course there is likely to be a lack of evidence to prove it if the woman kept the information to herself.
All the conditions are allegedly met assuming the story is true by my understanding.
|
First - I am not a lawyer. I did teach them for 30 years and wrote pretty extensively on various related issues, but all things considered, the following is probably worth exactly what it cost you.
There are a couple of possible avenues to deal with situations like this. On the criminal side, homicide, its definitions, and penalties are state level decisions. In a situation like the above, the victim should contact their local prosecutor's office and demand they do something. Maybe their legal system can address it, maybe it can't. Prosecutors also have substantial discretion in filing charges. If the DA declines to file charges, there is not a whole lot a victim can do. They can raise hell and hope public pressure can be brought to bear on he DA. That may work - it may not.
The other route is the civil side. For a supervisor to show up at work knowing they are infected would probably be defined as "grossly negligent." The statement she made about "everyone needs to get it," implies that she see herself as an active agent pursuing that goal. That makes the action willful, and all the more egregious. The woman who experienced the disease and loss appears to have suffered substantial damages. So, it sounds like she has a cause of action to file a civil suit.
There are a few problems with that approach. First is the law in her state. Second, she will need to find a lawyer who will take the case. Unless the victim is well off enough to pay the attorney's fees the lawyer will need to be willing to take the case either pro bono or on a contingent fee basis. Unless there is the potential for a sizeable judgement against the defendant, the contingent fee approach will be a hard sell. I can in no way guess what the probability of any of that is. And finally the plaintiff must prove their case and convince the jury (or judge) to return enough damages to hurt the defendant. Another problem with the civil route is all it can offer the injured party is money damages. For many, the idea of taking money as compensation for a terrible personal loss is unthinkable. But, it is all the system can do.
Finally, there is the resort to interpersonal violence. I would never condone that avenue, but I can understand its attraction.