It is not negligence. The term comes from neglected to perform a duty. Rick's duty was to disclose. Having disclosed, it was up to D.B. to decide whether to have sex with Rick. Not up to Rick to refuse to have unprotected sex with D.B. D.B. assumed the risk. And again, from the story, we don't know that D.B. was uninfected when he had unprotected sex with Rick. For all we know, D.B. may have been in the habit of having unprotected sex with dozens of strangers and Rick was the only person who disclosed to him and therefore D.B. chose to pin the blame on Rick.<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that he knowingly spread HIV to an uninflected person... Allegedly, this man did tell his partner, but decided to have risky unprotected sex anyway. That is negligent.
D.B.'s seroconversion is the result of his own negligence, not Rick's. Rick fulfilled his duty to disclose, therefore no negligence on his part. And there can be no negligence where the injured party assumed the risk. At least in this case, there was either contributory or comparable/comparative negligence which would serve to mitigate or eliminate any negligence on Rick's part (which I maintain there was none).
I fault your analogy as well. This is less like giving someone poison and more like a straight couple having unprotected sex. Maybe, just maybe, Rick gave D.B. a lifetime responsibility. If D.B. could prove "paternity", he might, perhaps, maybe be able to sue Rick CIVILLY, rather than prosecute him CRIMINALLY, for health benefits (the equivalent of child support). There is no justification for a criminal prosecution/conviction here. Rick might be facing other criminal charges, of which he is still innocent, but maybe he prefers barebacking. As long as he's only barebacking with others barebackers AND he discloses his status, or if it's a bareback sex party where it's simply assumed that the participants are either HIV+ or HIV+ friendly, as apparently D.B. was, there is no liability since everyone involved has assumed the risk.