When someone vomits, the vomit becomes aerosolized (that's what you smell...) when those particles enter your nose, you can catch the virus that caused it.
Blowing smoke in someone's face is a battery, why not vomit? A battery has nothing to do with a persons intent. Not going to the bathroom to vomit is negligence of omission.
2007-07-17 01:50:02 · 19 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
lol, actually you could use that as an argument. (once you have professionals to back that up). but of course you would have to prove that the person who puked did it intentionally.
2007-07-17 01:59:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Get real, There is no comparison between the two issues. Primarily, vomiting is usually an involuntary act. It is not usually something someone does on purpose. And most people would try to get to a bathroom first but it happens suddenly sometime and you are unable to stop it. There is no negligence involved. Blowing smoke in someones face is a voluntary choice and is completely different. Based on your thinking, if someone sneezes or coughs the virus becomes airborne also and you could catch that, should that be considered battery? I don't think so. If you want to blame anyone, blame your employer for making it difficult for someone who is not feeling well to take a day or so off to recover instead of having them come in and contaminate the whole office.
2007-07-17 02:11:03 · answer #2 · answered by ponderer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Battery is an intentional tort, the person has to have the intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact, and the harmful or offensive contact has to actually occur. Based on that you would need to show 1. the person intended to commit the contact 2. the type of contact is harmful or offensive 3. that you were actually contacted by the vomit. I don't see this getting through court and you or your lawyer are likely to be sanctions, counter-sued for filing it.
You're talking about a negligent omission then you are talking about the tort of negligence. The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation and damages. Even for arugumendo you can show there is a duty of this guy not to vomit and he breached it you would still need to show damages of some kind. It's not like a battery claim where there is punitive damages designed to punish.
if it's persistent you can go to your boss or the board of health at work but that is outside the scope of this question. your better bet is just to get some thicker skin.
2007-07-17 03:56:28 · answer #3 · answered by Damien T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Battery is an intentional tort, so for the vomiter to be liable the plaintiff would have the burden of proving that he intended to cause some sort of objectionable circumstances that made the plaintiff and others sick and uncomfortable. If it was an accident, then no cause of action would lie.
However, even if there was intent to cause a disruption, I doubt very much that a suit would be successful; battery requires some sort of offensive physical touching, however slight.
Finally, "negligence of omission" wouldn't be relevant because since battery is an intentional tort, it has nothing to do with negligence.
2007-07-17 02:03:30 · answer #4 · answered by Sean 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
VLT-505 what are you ?? some sort of half baked lawyer or just a person looking for recognition or are you looking toward your first case in court.Well which ever way you go think this one over,maybe the person who chundered was on the booze the night before and didn't eat anything,so drinking on empty gut is not the done thing,gut overheats,resulting in over indulgence,subcequently it boil's
over night,person goes to work feeling seedy,sits at the desk for a while,in a short time his / her gut starts playing up again,then with one violent gush the body expels its cotents
all over the floor.It is you who said it was a virus,so it must have happened to you??So what happens to the booze particels that you get up your nose now,do they make you vomit or give up the grog and how do you suppose you will go with a "class action"case,the judge would laugh you clean out of court ?? Have fun!!
2007-07-17 02:13:51 · answer #5 · answered by the-Devil-is-King 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, it could be considered that if the person intended to injure you with the smell, ...battery DOES require intent...it's an element of the crime of battery. Without intent, the issue becomes a civil matter and not a criminal case.
For example, a baseball player who breaks a bat hitting a ball at a game, and the broken bat flies into the crowd and hits someone across the head, sending them to the hospital...the player is guilty of negligence (a civil, NOT criminal case), but CANNOT be found guilty of battery (a criminal, NOT civil case).
Now, let's sort this out if the person farts or burps in your general direction! d:)
2007-07-17 01:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by Gary D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,it will be counted as battery because vomitting is something they can tell is about to happen.That could be taken to court and then you can also sue them. Yes the person can feel when they are about to vomit and if you are sick because of the smells thus causing a virus, they can be taken away for endangering the workmates. So take them to court and also sue them!
2007-07-17 02:39:09 · answer #7 · answered by ♥•Cyn Cyn•♥ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might be asking for trouble for filing a friviolous law suit. Generally, vomit does not contain airborne disease however contact with splatter may spread disease if not promptly washed off with soap and water. Blowing smoke is willful intent however, not going to the bathroom may be as a result of sudden unexpected vomiting. Vomiting is not always caused by a virus either but diseases such as gall bladder, stomach ulcers etc.
2007-07-17 01:58:01 · answer #8 · answered by kyghostchaser2006 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, battery DOES have something to do with intent. Blowing smoke in someone's face on purpose is battery, but smoke happening to blow in someone's direction is NOT battery. For that matter, if you crash into someone's car by accident you are not charged with battery. Intention DOES matter. Vomit is no different. Accidents happen. Accidents are NOT battery.
2007-07-17 01:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, because it is different from blowing smoke at someone. Vomiting is an involuntary action (usually), while blowing smoke in someone's face is generally considered an intentional act.
2007-07-17 01:55:55 · answer #10 · answered by Tony M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In some locations, you can be held accountable for the legal fees for both sides if yours is deemed a frivolous lawsuit.
If you are prepared to pay for both sets of lawyers, go ahead and try.
But if you win, be careful. If you ever sneeze, you may be counter sued.
2007-07-17 02:04:58 · answer #11 · answered by Mad Jack 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋