Hey Guys !
Thanks for posting. Without further ado.
I can't argue the scenario that you put out about someone "knowingly" passing on any disease. Joe used AIDS as an example, while others used tobacco and breast implants. Successful prosecutions for AIDS have rested completely with situations where someone knew they had AIDS, and yet did not use protective measures in engaging in sex with a unaware partner, usually deliberately so, to include various statutes now on the books, as JIm O. pointed out. The situation I was referring to regarding Allen, or a more typical low-end wholesaler, had other variables at play that would currently make it a far more difficult prosecution, even in a civil matter. Joe stated a situation of "selling snakes that might possibly have IBD", in itself a bit of a misnomer, as all boids can be assumed to have it, and it would lie in a situation of a vendor's animals being more likely to have it. I am disregarding someone claiming to have performed a test, or claiming as a part of the sale, that the animal purchased does not have IBD, as that would create a clear misrepresentation for that specific animal, and more easily prosecuted. With the only true determination being a $200-300 test, I do not believe it possible to buy or deal in the low-end market and buy a snake for $50 that comes with test certification. I do not think anyone has ever been successfully sued for giving someone else AIDS when the original carrier was unaware that they had it at the time. Blood banks etc have been sued, but usually because they violated their own established protocols, if not actual statutes. Prior to the existence of such protocols, I don't think anyone was able to hold blood-banks liable.
As it comes down now, and I would again try to keep the example focused on someone dealing with high volumes of low-end animals, there are no protocols to keep IBD from passing through. If someone were to have known that it had passed through, it would then become an issue of whatever "reasonable precautions" they took afterward. As it stands right now, we know that IBD can defeat some of the most stringent safeguards and quarantines. A successful civil prosecution would have to show that the vendor had some obligation to high standards that may not be effective anyway, and then show negligence against these protocols. A defense would argue for it to be shown that the vendor did not do something that would have been deemed prudent or reasonable, prudent and reasonable according to whom, and where's the existing standard. A defense would also argue that the current prime accepted protocol is quarantine on the part of the buyer, and "buyer beware". My point would be that, as it now stands, it would be a very difficult case to bring.
Advance the scenario. With a confirmed or suspected IBD, a vendor now halts sales and quarantines all animals for 3 months. Disinfects and cleans everything. Manages to have 8-10 animals randomly tested. Brings in new animals to the "clean" area. Sells a new animal after a meticulous cleaning. Dies of IBD. Obviously, this vendor would have a better case against any negligence claim, but yet the disease still spread. The protocols were inadequate.
On top of it all, the plaintiff would be trying to establish that the IBD came from the vendor, and not from some other source. Being as we currently know so little about it, it won't be easy.
As for tobacco and implants, I would agree if they were just used as an example that "anything can happen over time". Agreed, someday I believe there will be more statutes in place in order to successfully prosecute an "IBD Mary", as in "typhoid Mary". Otherwise, the parallels do not work for me. Tobacco got nailed for down-playing the risk of their product while having evidence to the contrary. Tobacco was the causative agent. Same with implants. Boids are not the causative agents here. A poorly understood, highly lethal, and highly contagious disease is. I'll throw in another example. The FDA allows a very small amount of rodent feces to be in our food products, as they know it cannot be 100% eliminated.
One possible angle now would be to try to establish that current husbandry conditions violate existing statutes, which may have contributed to the spread of the IBD, and that the vendor is then 30% liable or something. Most current wholesale husbandry conditions are pretty rough, but that would be an avenue to pursue.
I'm not saying it can't be done. It would come down to what did the vendor know, when did they know it, did they ignore accepted safeguards (or laws as eventually caught up with AIDS), were they reasonably prudent, negligent, etc. Behind it all, the defense will be continually driving home the point that apparently the buyer's quarantine procedures were no more effective than the seller's, and is the seller obligated to a higher standard of quarantine than the buyer ? A difficult row to hoe IMO.
Dan, your unfamiliarity with attorneys is to be commended, BTW ! Now lets get REAL !!
