The case of Doe v. Moe is a lawsuit over "negligent sexual intercourse." During a string of apparently vigorous acts of love, Doe's then-girlfriend, Mary Moe, made her move, and missed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts explains it best:
The defendant's body was secured in this position by the interlocking of her legs and the plaintiff's legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff's abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture.
Long story short, Doe endured a lot of pain, and needed immediate surgery. His sexual dysfunction persists to this day, and can't be treated by therapy or medication. This lawsuit arose, and the Massachusetts courts were left trying to figure out whether there's such thing as a reasonable standard of care during consensual sex.
They concluded that such a standard is unworkable, although it would have been funny to see them try to establish one. That would have been some sweet activist judging -- the Massachusetts Appeals Court's coitus handbook.
2 comments:
and I thought I was having a bad day. Penile fracture, OUCH!
No kidding. I've never heard of that injury but I'm not interested enough to look it up.
Post a Comment