## Facts

- B.N., a nurse, and K.K., a physician, were unmarried sexual partners.
- K.K. had genital herpes during the relationship.
- B.N. alleged K.K. knew he had the disease, knew when it was active and highly contagious, and had sexual intercourse with her without warning or protective measures.
- B.N. was later diagnosed with genital herpes and alleged physical and emotional harms from the infection.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who knows or should know of a sexually transmissible disease owes a duty of reasonable care to an unmarried sexual partner, supporting a negligence claim for transmission.
2. Whether nondisclosure of a known, serious, contagious sexually transmitted disease before intercourse can constitute actionable fraud/deceit.
3. Whether knowingly exposing a partner to such a disease while concealing the risk can satisfy the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Decision

- The court held that the complaint stated legally sufficient claims for negligence, fraud based on nondisclosure, and IIED.
- The court rejected the view that an unmarried relationship, without a “confidential relationship,” categorically eliminates a duty to disclose for fraud purposes.
- The court reversed judgments for K.K. on all three theories and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A person who knows or reasonably should know they are infected with a sexually transmissible disease owes sexual partners a duty of reasonable care to prevent transmission, which may require disclosure, abstention, or other reasonable precautions, especially during active phases.
- Fraud may be based on concealment or nondisclosure when the defendant knows a material fact (a serious, contagious infection), knows the other party is ignorant and acting under a misapprehension, and the circumstances make silence misleading; resulting reliance and harm can make the nondisclosure actionable.
- Knowingly exposing another to a serious sexually transmitted disease while concealing the risk can constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct and, if accompanied by the requisite intent (or reckless disregard) and severe distress, can support an IIED claim.
- Whether the defendant acted unreasonably, whether nondisclosure was materially misleading and relied upon, and whether distress was severe are fact questions for proof at trial when adequately pleaded.

## Conclusion

The court held that Maryland tort law permits an unmarried sexual partner to pursue negligence, fraud-by-nondisclosure, and IIED claims based on alleged knowing exposure to genital herpes without warning, and it remanded for litigation on the merits.


B.N. v. K.K., 312 Md. 135, 538 A.2d 1175 (Md. 1988)