ÿWPCÖ K™1{ª‰øiI=ô•Äû0Ü?ïÍ$,›æ(Aì…:–h­áKLä‹>,HÃØÿRKzÔµqC m¥~ß󣿮¥°8cžƒØýµåsîÊ®]«g4Qè Â1³ÿÝfšåùWÝü oÕõ£Ù|*ðs¥¤Y™„ëœ~×`šäm‰ï ˜®³>Mö¸jÉ&òÀÞ ú A)#À«¿/€Âæqìð¬4âÕhŒ¨ƒh™™# pÜg 2Ò6H¼9~`^gÿè0ƒÁäN˜a¼I.×úÕP›7i”Y `ÆH‹Sât^Üt!8Élì0Û ±U*:^ï$f³œBö_Α¶¤›ï õ!Ìô®üYx@°»¾ Ž0 Ûá.ß{;šÔÜ{¶½vå¢P™)”Ì)ãVð^¶zo<­àG7-‚µbx1A½K£`»¾#–$qφ¸¨D4üʈô(-ê™zo®³1œ¬Hž2Î…Kc L)àm}ÇCz>δšX.ÖÐhw¹P½6ã 9ôé]cpVb{-*[¦¹­×˜ãóV²Sd±‡föG¿g:`¹›«˜š½*;4Xå±;kzòl†ÏÒó×`îÅËt %X^ ^ 0ˆjwòUNö4D X zg Òá ³ mµ JÌ † Æœ ÆbÆ(ÆîD´Nø 0Dú#Á>EÿU@U:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAb{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ 0냃ƒƒ Bnn 0¤‹ D5/ D-d 0K‘‘ ASÜÆ/ 0¤õ 0D™ A«ÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ D1ˆ B¹»:¥u)â (`¤ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularfdJ)avidso3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ €HAMBLENHamblenMcCullough Ð 1 ' ib013c80ib013c8 .   Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 :Ý ƒRq$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôßÔ ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note,€however,€that€this€is€not€the€first€case€involving€alleged€transmission€of€herpes€between€spouses€inÐ ° ÐTennessee.€€In€the€case€of€òòò òWilkinson€v.€Wilkinsonóóó ó,€1999€WL€969698€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999),€the€Middle€SectionÐ xÈ Ðaffirmed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€defendant€ex„husband€when€his€blood€tests€cameÐ @ Ðback€negative€for€the€herpes€virus.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-(|G2q$¤¤Ý ƒ¤ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôß,ò»»Ô d(|3¡ $££Ý ƒ¤ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¡ $¢¢Ý ƒ¤ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€§d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKss)÷ÿ! dxdxüÿP PdÝ ƒ¤ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¾ü»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼¾ü»»»ÔÑ8€¸kXXdð»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îè¾üÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼¾ü»îîè #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  ÓOn€Briefs€July€14,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔÌò òÔ#†¼¾ü»XX¸kò#ÔPAM€HAMBLENòòóó€v.€RICHARD€DAVIDSONòòóóÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òRule€3€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔObionÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€8„495€€€€€€Steve€Stafford,€Judge€by€InterchangeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„00144„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€November€8,€2000Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¾ü»XX¸kc#ÔÌÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔThis€appeal€arises€from€a€personal€injury€suit€in€which€Plaintiff€alleged€that€her€ex„husband€hadÐ Î Ðnegligently€infected€her€with€the€virus€which€causes€genital€herpes.€€The€trial€court€grantedÐ ¾ ÐDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€finding€that:€(1)€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations,Ð ®þ ÐÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€28„3„104,€barred€Plaintiff's€claim;€(2)€Plaintiff€failed€to€establish€that€Defendant€knew€orÐ žî Ðshould€have€known€he€had€herpes,€and€owed€her€a€duty€to€warn€her€of€his€condition;€and€(3)€PlaintiffÐ ŽÞ Ðfailed€to€establish€that€she€contracted€the€virus€from€Defendant.€€Plaintiff€appeals.Ô#†¼¾ü»XX¸kÝ#ÔÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔÐ ~Î ÐÓ­ÓÌò òTenn.R.App.R.3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ#†¼¾ü»XX¸ké#ÔÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔ;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversedó óÐ ^® ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼¾ü»àX¸ku#ÔÔ‡X¸kX.¼¾üÔW.€Frank€Crawford,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòAlan€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ôóó€andÐ >Ž ÐòòDavid€Farmeróó,€joined.Ð .~ ÐÌDavid€L.€Hamblen,€Union€City,€for€appellant,€Pam€HamblenÐ ^ ÐÌDamon€E.€Campbell,€Union€City,€for€appellee,€Richard€DavidsonÐ î > ÐÓÖÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼¾ü»XX¸k #ÔÔ‡X¸kX»¼¾üÔÐ Î"! ÐÌÔ#†¼¾ü»XX¸k #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X¸kX»¼¾üÔà  àPlaintiff,€Pam€Hamblen,€sued€her€ex„husband,€defendant,€Richard€Davidson,€for€damagesÐ ®$þ# Ðresulting€from€his€negligence€in€infecting€her€with€the€genital€herpes€virus.€€From€the€order€of€theÐ ž%î $ Ðtrial€court€granting€defendant€summary€judgment,€plaintiff€appeals.€€The€trial€court€grantedÐ Ž&Þ!% ÐDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€grounds€that:€(1)€the€one„year€statute€ofÐ ~'Î"& Ðlimitations€barred€Plaintiffððs€claim;€(2)€Plaintiff€failed€to€show€that€Defendant€knew€or€should€haveÐ n(¾#' Ðknown€he€was€infected€with€the€virus€which€causes€genital€herpes€and€therefore€owed€Plaintiff€a€dutyÐ ^)®$( Ðto€warn€her€of€his€condition;€and€(3)€Plaintiff€failed€to€prove€that€Defendantððs€actions€were€theÐ N*ž%) Ðproximate€cause€of€her€injuries.Ð >+Ž&* Ðà  àOn€March€11,€1997,€Plaintiff€Pam€Hamblen€and€her€husband,€Defendant€Richard€Davidson,Ð .,~'+ Ðdivorced€after€22€years€of€marriage.€€In€October€of€1996,€Plaintiff€discovered€that€her€husband€hadÐ -n(,ý÷ Ðbeen€involved€in€an€extramarital€relationship€since€October€of€1994.€€Between€1995€and€1997,Ð ° ÐPlaintiff€experienced€three€ð ðrashesðð€in€her€genital€tract€which€she€testified€were€not€ð ðsevere€enoughððÐ  ð Ðto€cause€her€concern.€€Plaintiffððs€physician,€Dr.€Robert€Cameron,€testified€at€his€deposition€thatÐ à Ðrashes€of€the€kind€Plaintiff€experienced€are€not€uncommon€in€women,€and€may€be€caused€by€aÐ €Ð Ðnumber€of€things,€including€use€of€deodorants,€soaps,€perfume,€or€even€wearing€tight€clothing.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAt€the€time€she€experienced€the€first€rash,€Plaintiff€discussed€it€with€Defendant.€€Plaintiff€alsoÐ P   Ðtestified€that,€approximately€a€week€and€a€half€before€the€initial€rash,€she€observed€DefendantÐ @  Ðð ðdoctoringðð€a€similar€rash€on€his€penis.€€At€that€time,€Plaintiff€claims€Defendant€told€her€he€hadÐ 0 € Ðpoison€ivy,€which€he€explained€he€must€have€gotten€when€he€was€golfing,€and€that€he€transferred€theÐ  p  Ðpoison€ivy€from€his€hands€to€his€penis€when€he€relieved€himself€in€the€woods.€€Since€DefendantÐ `  Ðoften€got€poison€ivy€on€his€outings€with€the€coupleððs€son,€Plaintiff€testified€she€did€not€questionÐ P  ÐDefendantððs€explanation€of€the€rash.€€Plaintiff€also€testified€that,€on€another€occasion,€she€observedÐ ð@  Ða€red€spot€on€Defendantððs€penis,€which€Defendant€claimed€was€a€ð ðscratch.ððÐ à0  ÐÌà  àSeveral€weeks€after€she€discovered€that€Defendant€was€engaging€in€extramarital€relationships,Ð À ÐPlaintiff€asked€her€physician€to€give€her€an€AIDS€test.€€The€results€of€that€test€were€negative,€andÐ ° ÐPlaintiff€testified€that€she€did€not€investigate€the€possibility€that€she€had€any€other€sexuallyÐ  ð Ðtransmitted€diseases€(ð ðSTDððsðð)€at€that€time€because€she€was€not€ð ðknowledgeable€enoughðð€aboutÐ à Ðthem.€€It€was€not€until€September,€1997,€after€seeing€a€television€program€on€herpes,€that€PlaintiffÐ €Ð Ðapproached€her€physician€regarding€the€rashes.€€Plaintiffððs€physician€told€her€to€return€if€she€hadÐ pÀ Ðanother€rash,€and€in€November€of€1997,€Plaintiff€tested€positive€for€the€virus€which€causes€herpes.Ð `° ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€has€only€had€one€other€sexual€partner,€Mark€McCullough.€€Plaintiff€testified€that€sheÐ @ Ðengaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€Mr.€McCullough€one€time€in€1973,€before€her€marriage€toÐ 0€ ÐDefendant.€€Mr.McCullough€tested€positive€for€herpes€simplex€virus€I€and€negative€for€herpesÐ  p Ðsimplex€virus€II.€€The€parties€presented€conflicting€evidence€regarding€the€significance€of€theÐ ` Ðdifferent€forms€of€the€herpes€virus.€€Defendant€argued€that€the€two€forms€of€the€virus€are€essentiallyÐ P Ðthe€same,€and€that€Plaintiff€could€have€contracted€the€virus€from€her€sexual€contact€with€Mr.Ð ð@ ÐMcCullough.€€Plaintiff€presented€evidence€that€it€is€unlikely€she€has€the€herpes€simplex€I€virus,Ð à0 Ðbecause€that€type€of€virus€usually€is€only€associated€with€blisters€on€the€lips.€€Plaintiffððs€physicianÐ Ð  Ðtestified€that€the€type€I€virus€could€only€cause€sores€below€the€waist€if€an€individual€infected€withÐ À! Ðthe€virus€touched€the€sores€on€his€lips€to€the€genital€area€of€another€person.€€Plaintiff€claims€that,Ð °"  Ðsince€she€never€engaged€in€any€type€of€oral€sex€with€Mr.€McCullough,€he€cannot€be€the€source€ofÐ  #ð! Ðher€infection.Ð $à" ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€sued€her€husband€for€negligence€in€infecting€her€with€the€herpes€virus,€alleging€thatÐ p&À!$ Ðhe€had€a€duty€to€refrain€from€any€conduct€which€could€cause€her€injury.€€Plaintiff€claims€that,€evenÐ `'°"% Ðif€Defendant€did€not€know€he€had€a€communicable€venereal€disease,€Defendant€owed€her€a€duty€toÐ P( #& Ðwarn€her€that€he€was€engaged€in€an€extramarital€affair€and€could€potentially€be€exposing€her€to€risk.€Ð @)$' ÐThe€trial€court,€in€granting€Defendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€found€that€the€Plaintiff€shouldÐ 0*€%( Ðhave€known€that€she€had€herpes€in€October,€1996.€€The€court€also€found€that€Defendant€did€not€oweÐ  +p&) ÐPlaintiff€a€duty€to€warn€because€the€evidence€did€not€show€that€Defendant€knew€or€should€haveÐ ,`'* Ðknown€he€had€a€venereal€disease.€€Finally,€the€court€found€that€Plaintiff€did€not€present€sufficientÐ ° Ðevidence€to€show€that,€even€if€such€a€duty€existed,€the€Defendant€was€the€source€of€her€herpesÐ  ð Ðinfection.€€Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€issues€presented€in€this€appeal€are:Ð pÀ ÐÌà8  à1.€€Whether€the€statute€of€limitations€barred€Plaintiffððs€claim€for€negligentÐ P   Ðtransmission€of€the€herpes€virus.Ð@ Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à2.€€Whether€the€Defendant€had€a€duty€to€prevent€transmitting€herpes€to€Plaintiff€if€heÐ  p  Ðknew€or€should€have€known€he€was€infected€with€the€herpes€virus.Ð` Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à3.€€Whether€Plaintiff€has€carried€her€burden€in€showing€that€Defendantððs€breach€ofÐ ð@  Ðthe€duty€to€prevent€transmission€was€the€proximate€cause€of€her€herpes€infection.Ðà0 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movant€demonstrates€that€thereÐ À Ðare€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matterÐ ° Ðof€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€ofÐ  ð Ðdemonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòBain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622Ð à Ð(Tenn.€1997).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ €Ð Ðof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€in€favor€of€thatÐ pÀ Ðparty,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847€S.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993),Ð `° Ðour€Supreme€Court€stated:Ð P  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€no€genuine€issueÐ 0€ Ðof€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€must€then€demonstrate,€byÐ  p Ðaffidavits€or€discovery€materials,€that€there€is€a€genuine,€material€factÐ ` Ðdispute€to€warrant€a€trial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€theÐ P Ðnonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadings€but€must€setÐ ð@ Ðforth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€a€genuine€issue€of€materialÐ à0 Ðfact€for€trial.à8` x` xàÐÐ ÈÈ ÐÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€210„11€(citations€omitted)(emphasis€in€original).Ð °"  ÐÌà  àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€fromÐ $à" Ðthe€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð €%Ð # Ð1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÐ p&À!$ Ða€trial€court's€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòBainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€review€of€theÐ `'°"% Ðtrial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòWarren€v.Ð P( #& ÐEstate€of€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ð @)$' ÐÌòòStatute€of€LimitationsóóÐ  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà  àThe€first€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€forÐ ° ÐDefendant€based€upon€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€in€personal€injury€cases.€€UnderÐ  ð ÐÔ_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ôðð28„3„104€(Supp.€1999),€actions€for€personal€injuries€must€be€brought€within€one€year€afterÐ à Ðthe€cause€of€action€accrues.€€As€we€noted€in€òòò òCraig€v.€R.R.€Street€&€Co.,€Inc.óóó ó,€794€S.W.2d€351,€355Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990),€the€determination€of€when€a€cause€of€action€accrues€is€problematic.€€AlthoughÐ pÀ Ðthe€cause€of€action€ð ðgenerally€accrues€when€the€tort€is€complete€and€injury€to€the€plaintiff€hasÐ ` ° Ðoccurred.€.€.€[Ô_Ôi]nÔ_Ô€certain€tort€actions.€.€.€the€accrual€of€the€cause€of€action€is€deferred€until€the€injuryÐ P   Ðis€discovered€or€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€and€diligence,€the€injury€should€have€beenÐ @  Ðdiscovered.ðð€€òòò òHunter€v.€Brownóóó ó,€955€S.W.2d€49,€51€(Tenn.€1997)€(citations€omitted).€€The€discoveryÐ 0 € Ðrule€only€applies€in€cases€where€the€plaintiff€does€not,€and€cannot€reasonably€be€expected€to,Ð  p  Ðdiscover€the€harm€giving€rise€to€the€cause€of€action.€€òòò òÔ_ÔPottsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCelotexÔ_Ôóóó ó,€796€S.W.2d€678,€680€(Tenn.Ð `  Ð1990).€€The€rule€only€tolls€the€statute€of€limitations€as€long€as€the€plaintiff€had€no€knowledge€of€theÐ P  Ðinjury€and€ð ðas€a€reasonable€person€was€not€put€on€inquiry.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€681.€€The€requirement€that€aÐ ð@  Ðplaintiff€exercise€ð ðreasonable€care€and€diligenceðð€is€consonant€with€the€purpose€of€statutes€ofÐ à0  Ðlimitation:€fairness€to€defendants€in€preventing€ð ðstaleðð€claims.€€It€is€with€these€considerations€in€mindÐ Ð  Ðthat€we€address€the€issue€of€whether€summary€judgment€based€upon€the€statute€of€limitations€wasÐ À Ðproper€in€this€case.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àPlaintiff€asserts€that€she€was€not€aware€that€she€had€herpes€prior€to€November€6,€1997,€whenÐ à Ðshe€tested€positive€for€the€herpes€virus.€€Defendant€argues€that€a€reasonable€person€in€PlaintiffððsÐ €Ð Ðposition€would€have€discussed€the€possibility€of€sexually€transmitted€diseases€with€her€physician€atÐ pÀ Ðthe€time€she€was€tested€for€AIDS€on€October€31,€1996.€€Defendant,€therefore,€claims€that€the€one„Ð `° Ðyear€statute€of€limitations€under€Ô_ÔT.C.A.Ô_Ô€ðð€28„3„104€runs€from€October€31,€1996,€and€that€recoveryÐ P  Ðfor€personal€injuries€in€the€complaint€filed€on€October€15,€1998€is€barred.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òSullivant€v.€Americana€Homes,€ó óóóInc.,€605€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980),€weÐ  p Ðaddressed€a€similar€case€involving€the€discovery€rule€in€the€context€of€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€TheÐ ` Ðplaintiff€in€ò òòòSullivant€óóó óalleged€that€the€defendantsðð€negligence€in€remedying€damp€living€conditionsÐ P Ðin€her€condominium€exacerbated€her€asthma.€€In€that€case,€we€wrote:Ð ð@ ÐÌà8  àThe€defendants€argue€that€the€complaint€states€that€[plaintiff]€began€to€have€anÐ Ð  Ðincrease€in€asthmatic€attacks€about€September€1,€1977.€.€.€and€that€the€one€yearÐ À! Ðstatute€of€limitations€.€.€.€runs€from€that€date.€€Hence,€defendants€contend€that€theÐ °"  Ðrecovery€for€personal€injuries€based€on€a€complaint€filed€in€November€of€1978,€wasÐ  #ð! Ðbarred.€€This€is€nothing€more€than€an€assertion€that€plaintiff€should€have€known€onÐ $à" ÐSeptember€1,€1977,€that€her€injuries€were€a€result€of€the€defendantsðð€actions.€€PerhapsÐ €%Ð # Ðshe€should€have.€€Perhaps€not.€€In€either€event,€it€is€not€for€counsel€or€Court€to€decideÐ p&À!$ Ðthat€fact€on€motion€to€dismiss.€.€.€.ò òòòWhether€or€not€Ô_ÔWillolaÔ_Ô€Sullivant€exercisedÐ `'°"% Ðreasonable€care€and€diligence€to€discover€that€she€had€a€compensable€injury€is€aÐ P( #& Ðfact€for€a€jury€to€determine.ó óóóÐ@)$'Ð Ð  ÐÌ605€S.W.2d€at€249€(emphasis€added).€€Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Ðà  àThe€same€reasoning€is€applicable€in€the€case€at€bar.€€Plaintiff€here€argues€that€she€had€noÐ ° Ðreason€to€believe€that€the€minor€genital€rashes€she€was€experiencing€were€in€any€way€related€to€herÐ  ð Ðhusbandððs€infidelity.€€Plaintiff€presented€evidence€that€this€type€of€rash€can€be€caused€by€manyÐ à Ðdifferent€factors,€and€that€she€was€unfamiliar€with€the€symptoms€associated€with€the€herpes€virus.€Ð €Ð ÐPlaintiff€also€presented€evidence€that€she€did€inquire€as€to€the€rash€on€Defendantððs€penis,€but€that€sheÐ pÀ Ðno€reason€to€doubt€Defendantððs€explanation€that€the€rash€was€caused€by€poison€ivy.€€Evidence€in€theÐ ` ° Ðrecord€does€show€that€the€Plaintiff€was€familiar€with€the€risks€associated€with€the€virus€which€causesÐ P   ÐAIDS,€and€that€Plaintiff€sought€medical€advice€without€delay€in€light€of€that€risk.€€Construing€thisÐ @  Ðevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€Plaintiff,€we€find€that€the€Defendant€did€not€meet€his€burdenÐ 0 € Ðof€showing€that€no€material€issue€of€fact€exists€as€to€whether€Plaintiff€exercised€reasonable€diligence.€Ð  p  ÐWe€hold,€therefore,€that€whether€the€Plaintiff€exercised€due€diligence€in€this€case€is€a€matter€of€factÐ `  Ðfor€the€jury€to€decide.Ð P  ÐÌòòDefendantððs€DutyóóÐ à0  ÐÌà  àWhether€a€plaintiff€states€a€claim€for€negligent€transmission€of€a€venereal€disease€isÐ À Ðapparently€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€it€appears€that€all€the€jurisdictionsÐ ° Ðwhich€have€considered€the€issue€have€held€that€both€married€and€unmarried€sexual€partners€may€beÐ  ð Ðliable€to€each€other€for€transmitting€diseases€such€as€the€virus€which€causes€herpes.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€MeanyÐ à Ðv.€Meanyóóó ó,€639€So.2d€229€(La.1994)(herpes);€òòò òMcPherson€v.€McPhersonó óóó,€712€A.2d€1043€(Me.Ð €Ð Ð1998)(venereal€warts);€òòò òÔ_ÔB.N.Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔK.K.Ô_Ôóóó ó,€538€A.2d€1175€(Md.€1987)(herpes);€òòò òÔ_ÔR.A.P.Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔB.J.P.Ô_Ôó óóó,€428Ð pÀ ÐN.W.2d€103€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1988),€òòpet.€for€rev.€deniedóó€(Minn.€Oct.€19,€1988)(herpes);€òòò òStafford€v.Ð `° ÐStaffordóóó ó,€726€S.W.2d€14€(Tex.1987)(venereal€disease);€òòò òÔ_ÔMussivandÔ_Ô€v.€Davidóóó ó,€544€N.E.2d€265€(OhioÐ P  Ð1989)(herpes).Ð @ ÐÌà  àAs€with€any€negligence€claim,€a€plaintiff€alleging€damages€from€negligent€transmission€ofÐ  p Ða€disease€must€establish€the€traditional€elements€of€a€negligence€claim.€€Those€elements€are:€€(1)€theÐ ` Ðexistence€of€a€legal€duty;€(2)€breach€of€that€legal€duty;€(3)€an€injury€to€the€plaintiff;€(4)€causation€inÐ P Ðfact;€and€(5)€proximate€or€legal€causation.€€òòò òSeeó óóó.€òòò òRoe€v.€Catholic€Diocese€of€Memphis,€Inc.ó óóó,€950Ð ð@ ÐS.W.2d€27,€31€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Whether€a€legal€duty€exists€in€any€negligence€action€is€aÐ à0 Ðquestion€of€law€for€the€court€to€decide.€€òòò òSee€Blair€v.€Campbellóóó ó,€924€S.W.2d€75,€78€(Tenn.€1996).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòò òBradshaw€v.€Danielóóó ó,€854€S.W.2d€865€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€said:Ð °"  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€existence€or€nonexistence€of€a€duty€owed€to€the€plaintiff€by€theÐ $à" Ðdefendant€is€entirely€a€question€of€law€for€the€court.€€Ô_ÔProsserÔ_Ô€Ô‡XJ¬XXX¸kÔððÔ#†X¸kXXXJ¬ÀO#Ô€37€atÐ €%Ð # Ðâ â236;€ò òòòGlenn€v.€Conneró óóó,€533€S.W.2d€297,€302€(Tenn.€1976);€ò òòòDooleyÐ ~&Î!$ Ðv.€Everettó óóó,€805€S.W.2d€380,€384€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€In€determiningÐ ° Ðthe€issue,€a€court€should€considerРð` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà8¸ ` x` xà.€.€.€whether,€upon€the€facts€in€evidence,€such€aÐ €Ð Ðrelation€exists€between€the€parties€that€the€communityÐ pÀ Ðwill€impose€a€legal€obligation€upon€one€for€the€benefitÐ ` ° Ðof€others€ð!ð€or,€more€simply,€whether€the€interest€of€theÐ P   Ðplaintiff€which€has€suffered€invasion€was€entitled€toÐ @  Ðlegal€protection€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant.€€This€isÐ 0 € Ðentirely€a€question€of€law€to€be€determined€byÐ  p  Ðreference€to€the€body€of€statutes,€rules,€principles€andÐ `  Ðprecedents€which€make€up€the€law;€and€it€mu€beÐ P  Ðdetermined€only€by€the€court.€.€.€.€A€decision€by€theÐ ð@  Ðcourt€that,€upon€any€version€of€the€facts,€there€is€noÐ à0  Ðduty,€must€necessarily€result€in€judgment€for€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendant.€€A€decision€that€if€certain€facts€are€found€toÐ À Ðbe€true,€a€duty€exists,€leaves€open€the€other€questionsÐ ° Ðnow€under€consideration€[concerning€the€existence€ofÐ  ð Ðnegligence].Ðภ¸  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òòòLindseyó óóó,€689€S.W.2d€at€859,€quoting€Ô_ÔProsserÔ_Ô€Ô‡XJ¬XXX¸kÔððÔ#†X¸kXXXJ¬fV#Ô€37€at€236.€€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌò òòòId.€ó óóóat€869„70.Ð ^® ÐÌà  àThe€key€to€determining€whether€the€duty€exists€is€the€Ô_ÔforeseeabilityÔ_Ô€of€the€harm€to€the€injuredÐ >Ž Ðparty.€€If€a€reasonable€person€would€not€have€foreseen€the€harm,€then€there€is€no€duty€of€care,Ð .~ Ðregardless€of€whether€the€defendantððs€act€caused€harm€to€the€plaintiff.€€òòò òSee€Eaton€v.€Ô_ÔMcLainÔ_Ôóóó ó,€891Ð n ÐS.W.2d€587,€594€(Tenn.€1994).€€ð ðThe€pertinent€question€is€whether€there€was€any€showing€fromÐ ^ Ðwhich€it€can€be€said€that€the€defendants€reasonably€òòò òknew€or€should€have€knownó óóó€of€the€probabilityÐ þN Ðof€an€occurrence€such€as€the€one€which€caused€€plaintiffððs€injuries.ðð€€òòò òDoe€v.€Ô_ÔLinderÔ_Ô€Constr.€Co.óóó ó,€845Ð î> ÐS.W.2d€173€(Tenn.€1992)(emphasis€added).€€It€is€with€this€analysis€in€mind€that€we€join€the€majorityÐ Þ . Ðof€states€who€have€addressed€the€issue€and€hold€that€an€individual€who€knows€or€should€know€heÐ Î! Ðhas€a€venereal€disease€has€a€legal€duty€to€use€reasonable€care€in€preventing€the€diseaseððsÐ ¾"  Ðtransmission.€€òòò òSee,€e.g.,€Meanyóóó ó,€639€So.2d€at€235;òòò ò€McPhersonóóó ó,€712€A.2d€at€1046;€ò òòòÔ_ÔM.M.D.Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔB.L.G.Ô_Ôóóó ó,Ð ®#þ! Ð467€N.W.2d€645,€647€(Minn.€Ct.€App.€1991).€òòrev.€denied€óó(Minn.€May€23,€1991)òòò òóóó ó.€€Ð ž$î" ÐÌà  àThe€level€of€knowledge€required€to€trigger€the€duty€to€avoid€exposing€others€to€a€disease€isÐ ~&Î!$ Ðdependent€upon€the€particular€facts€involved€in€each€case.€€In€òòò òÔ_ÔM.M.D.Ô_Ôó óóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€ofÐ n'¾"% ÐMinnesota€held€that€the€duty€to€prevent€transmission€ð ðmay€arise€where€a€person€does€not€haveÐ ^(®#& Ðmedical€confirmation€that€the€disease€has€been€contracted.ðð€€467€N.W.2d€at€647.€€In€that€case,€theÐ N)ž$' ÐMinnesota€Court€of€Appeals€found€such€a€duty€existed€based€on€the€observation€that€ð ða€reasonableÐ >*Ž%( Ðperson€should€know€an€acne„type€condition€on€the€genitals€could€be€communicated€to€others€throughÐ .+~&) Ðsexual€contact.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€€In€òòò òMeany€v.€Meanyóóó ó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Louisiana€wrote:Ð ,n'* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àCertainly,€the€presence€of€open,€oozing€genital€sores€indicates€aÐ ° Ðserious€problem,€whether€or€not€a€diagnosis€exists.€€If€a€defendant€hasÐ  ð Ðexperienced€such€an€attack€.€.€.€he€would€likely€be€deemed€by€theÐ à Ðcourts€to€posses€the€requisite€knowledge,€whether€or€not€an€actualÐ €Ð Ðdiagnosis€could€be€proved.ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌ639€So.2d€at€234.€€The€òòò òMeanyóóó ó€court€went€on€to€says€that€an€individual€has€a€duty€to€refrain€fromÐ P   Ðsexual€contact€or€warn€of€his€symptoms€if€he€knows€or€suspects€that€he€has€symptoms€ð ðsuggestingÐ @  Ðany€kind€of€venereal€disease.ðð€€òòò òId.óóó ó€at€236.Ð 0 € ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€evidence€in€the€case€at€bar,€and€construing€that€evidence€in€the€light€mostÐ `  Ðfavorable€the€Plaintiff,€there€is,€at€the€very€least,€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€as€to€whether€theÐ P  ÐDefendant€knew€or€should€have€known€he€had€herpes€or€any€other€Ô_ÔsexallyÔ_Ô€transmitted€disease.€€IfÐ ð@  Ðso,€he€owed€the€Plaintiff€a€duty€to€prevent€the€transmission€of€the€virus€to€her.€€The€record€indicatesÐ à0  Ðthat€the€Defendant€had€engaged€in€at€least€one€extramarital€sexual€relationship€and€had€unprotectedÐ Ð  Ðsex.€€The€record€also€indicates€that€the€Defendant€had€a€ð ðscratchðð€and€a€rash€on€his€genitals€at€variousÐ À Ðtimes€after€he€began€having€extramarital€sex.€€Whether€this€evidence€is€sufficient€to€show€thatÐ ° ÐDefendant€knew€or€should€have€known€he€had€herpes€is€a€question€for€a€jury€to€decide.€€We€holdÐ  ð Ðonly€that€the€evidence€is€sufficient€for€the€purposes€of€summary€judgment.Ð à ÐÌòòCausationÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àóóThe€final€issue€in€this€case€is€that€of€causation.€€Causation,€or€cause€in€fact,€concerns€theÐ P  Ðrelationship€between€the€defendantððs€conduct€and€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€òòò òSee€Ô_ÔKilpatrickÔ_Ô€v.€Bryantóóó ó,Ð @ Ð868€S.W.2d.€594,€598€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€inquiry€is€whether€the€defendantððs€conduct€caused€theÐ 0€ Ðharm€to€plaintiff.€€òòò òSee€Quaker€Oats€Co.€v.€Davisóóó ó,€232€S.W.2d€282,€294€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1949).€€ThisÐ  p Ðinquiry€is€one€for€the€jury€to€determine,€ð ðunless€the€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€facts€and€inferences€to€be€drawnÐ ` Ðfrom€them€make€it€so€clear€that€all€reasonable€persons€must€agree€on€the€proper€outcome.ðð€€òòò òRoe€v.Ð P ÐCatholic€Diocese€of€Memphis,€Inc.óóó ó,€950€S.W.2d€27,€31€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€has€noted€that€a€jury€may€infer€a€causal€connection€through€the€use€ofÐ Ð  Ðcircumstantial€evidence,€expert€testimony€or€both.€€òòò òQuaker€Oatsóóó ó,€232€S.W.2d€282€at€294.€€Similarly,Ð À! ÐCourts€addressing€the€issue€of€negligent€transmission€of€the€herpes€virus€have€recognized€that€expertÐ °"  Ðtestimony€is€not€required€to€establish€causation.€€In€òòò òÔ_ÔM.M.D.Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔB.L.G.Ô_Ôóóó ó,€467€N.W.2d€645,€647€(Minn.Ð  #ð! ÐCt.€App.€1991),€€the€Court€of€Appeals€of€Minnesota€€noted€that€the€ð ðcausation€of€herpes€is€notÐ $à" Ðbeyond€the€average€personððs€knowledge,ðð€and€that€the€inability€of€a€medical€expert€to€state€with€aÐ €%Ð # Ðð ðreasonable€degree€of€medical€certaintyðð€that€the€defendant€is€the€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€infectionÐ p&À!$ Ðis€not€fatal€to€the€juryððs€ability€to€determine€causation.€Ð `'°"% ÐÌà  àDefendant€argues€that€Plaintiff€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€the€source€of€her€herpes.€€InÐ @)$' Ðsupport€of€this€claim,€Defendant€points€to€evidence€that€the€Plaintiff€engaged€in€sexual€relations€withÐ 0*€%( ÐMr.€McCullough€at€a€graduation€party€in€1973.€€Defendant€argues€that,€because€Mr.€McCullough€hasÐ  +p&) Ðalso€tested€positive€for€the€virus€which€causes€herpes,€and€that€Plaintiff€failed€to€present€anyÐ ,`'* Ðð ðcompetent€medical€evidence,ðð€Plaintiff€has€failed€to€establish€that€Defendant€is€the€source€of€herÐ ° Ðherpes€infection.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€Ð  ð ÐÌà  àAs€noted€Ô_ÔealierÔ_Ô,€the€Minnesota€Court€of€Appeals€in€ò òòòÔ_ÔM.M.D.Ô_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔB.L.G.Ô_Ôó óóó,€ò òòòsupraó óóó,€held€that€expertÐ €Ð Ðtestimony€was€not€necessary€to€establish€causation.€€Given€the€evidence€in€the€record€that€genitalÐ pÀ Ðherpes€is€transmitted€by€sexual€activity,€we€believe€that€the€holding€of€the€Minnesota€Court€wouldÐ ` ° Ðapply€equally€in€Tennessee.€€€In€the€instant€case,€the€Plaintiff€did€present€evidence,€including€medicalÐ P   Ðevidence,€which€viewed€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€her,€could€create€an€inference€that€DefendantÐ @  Ðwas€the€cause€of€her€herpes.€€The€Plaintiff€here€presented€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€evidence€that€she€wasÐ 0 € Ðmarried€to€Defendant€for€twenty„two€years€and€that,€during€that€time,€she€did€not€engage€in€sexualÐ  p  Ðrelations€with€anyone€except€her€husband.€€The€Plaintiff€also€testified€that€she€has€not€been€sexuallyÐ `  Ðinvolved€with€anyone€since€her€marriage€ended.€€The€record€also€contains€Ô_ÔuncontrovertedÔ_Ô€testimonyÐ P  Ðthat€the€Plaintiff€never€exhibited€the€symptoms€of€herpes€until€1995,€a€year€after€Defendant€beganÐ ð@  Ðhis€extramarital€relationship€with€Ms.€Greene.€€à  àÐ à0  ÐÌà  àAlthough€Plaintiff€does€not€deny€that€she€engaged€in€sexual€intercourse€with€Mr.Ð À ÐMcCullough€prior€to€her€marriage,€Plaintiff€presented€evidence€that€Mr.€McCullough€tested€positiveÐ ° Ðfor€the€herpes€simplex€I€virus,€which€is€normally€associated€with€fever€blisters€rather€than€venerealÐ  ð Ðoutbreaks.€€Although€there€is€conflicting€evidence€regarding€the€different€types€of€the€herpes€simplex€Ð à Ðvirus,€whether€the€Plaintiff€could€have€contracted€the€virus€from€a€source€other€than€the€Defendant€Ð €Ð Ðis€a€question€of€fact€for€a€jury€to€decide€and€was€not€a€proper€issue€for€summary€judgment.Ð pÀ ÐÌòòConcluÔ& Ð ÔsionóóÐ P  ÐÌà  àBaseÔ'ÐPÑzÔd€on€the€evidence€in€the€record,€we€hold€that€there€are€genuine€issues€of€material€factÐ 0€ Ðfor€a€jury€to€resolve,€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€in€this€action.€Ð  p ÐÔ‡X¸kXXX¸kÔAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÐ ` Ðsuch€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€appellee,Ð P ÐRichard€Davidson.€€Ô#†X¸kXXX¸k|#ÔÐ ð@ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð À! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€Ô_ÔW.S.Ô_Ô