MANCHESTER (LN) — U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting various tort claims arising out of the alleged transmission of a sexually transmitted infection, rejecting the argument that New Hampshire law categorically bars such liability and finding factual disputes on the statute of limitations.
The plaintiff, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, sued Jamie Hermanson for battery, fraud, and emotional distress after alleging she contracted HSV-2 from him. The court held that the plaintiff’s claims were not time-barred as a matter of law, noting that whether she could have reasonably discovered the causal link between her injury and the defendant’s conduct presented a question of fact for later resolution.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by New Hampshire’s three-year statute of limitations, contending she should have known of the injury and its cause when she sought medical treatment for vaginal pain and discharge in June 2022.
Laplante rejected that argument, noting that the plaintiff was treated for a “presumed infection and/or tear” at that time, conditions that may occur without a sexually transmitted disease. The court wrote that whether the plaintiff “could reasonably discern that [s]he suffered some harm” from the defendant’s conduct based on those symptoms presented a question of fact not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
On the merits, the court denied the motion to dismiss the battery and negligence claims, ruling that New Hampshire law does not preclude civil liability for the transmission of an STI. The defendant had relied on the state Supreme Court’s decision in Welzenbach v. Powers, which declined to recognize a tort claim for misrepresentation of contraceptive use resulting in pregnancy.
Laplante distinguished Welzenbach, noting that case involved a married man suing his partner for the consequences of a healthy birth, a context where the legislature had established clear support obligations. The court found no analogous legislative policy favoring an STI defendant and cited a “compelling public policy to halt the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.”
The judge also held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the intent element for battery by claiming the defendant knew he was infected and had previously infected another person. For negligence, the court held that transmitting a known STI to an uninformed partner is at least arguably a foreseeable harm giving rise to a duty of reasonable care.
Claims for fraud and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were also allowed to proceed. The court noted that the defendant’s arguments on these counts largely reiterated the rejected threshold contention that no such cause of action exists, and he did not meaningfully engage with the distinct elements of those specific claims.
The ruling does not constitute authoritative precedent regarding the scope of STI-based torts, Laplante noted, leaving such matters to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
The case is Doe v. Hermanson, 1:25-cv-00411, U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire (Laplante, J.).