Brzoska v. Olson

a.       D had HIV/AIDS and performed dental work for P. P is suing for battery…the result was NL:

                                                              i.      Offensive touching did not occur- Offensiveness of an act is measured by “reasonableness” standard. It’s reasonable to fear HIV/AIDS if the actor has open cuts, channel of fluid/infection. None of the P’s were exposed to any of those, therefore, their fear was unfounded.

                                                            ii.      P claims that they would have never consented to the procedures had they known D had HIV/AIDS. Courts rejected this theory on the basis that “a battery consists of a touching of a substantially different nature and character than that which the patient consented”. NL if the patient is touched the exact way he consented

                                                          iii.      Question: Can having HIV/AIDS make the “procedure” different? If it does, then Ps have not consented to this “new procedure”, namely the same procedure but performed by an HIV/AIDS infected doctor.