Skip to content

Blog

March 13 2012

0

Couple Wins A Wrongful Birth Lawsuit

posted by Allie

 

During my first few weeks of Tort class, I felt like I heard a new cause of action every day—intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, invasion of privacy, and the list goes on and on. However, I recently heard about another cause of action, Wrongful Birth.

I came across an interesting article about a couple that sued their health care professionals for failing to discover that the child had Down syndrome while the mother was pregnant despite numerous tests.  The couple argued that had they known about the Down syndrome, they would have terminated the pregnancy.

I have several problems with this ruling.  My initial thought was, wow, how lucky is this kid whose parents have put in writing that they wish the child had never been born.  No amount of “we love our child” or “we are just trying to cover health care costs” is going to detract from the fact that they are suing for WRONGFUL birth. 

Moving past the obvious emotional aspects of the case, I began to consider the legal merits of this claim.  The court found that the doctors had been negligent in their performance by failing to properly analyze and address chromosomal tests that were performed while the mother was pregnant.  I’m no legal scholar (and to be honest I didn’t even get an “A” in Torts), but when I think of negligence, I think about fault and liability for making a situation worse.  Basically, if the liable actor hadn’t been involved, everyone would have been better off.  Think of your common slip and fall scenario--- you have a plaintiff strolling along the grocery store aisle, which has recently been mopped by a grocery store employee without leaving a warning sign. Here’s the classic case where the employee’s actions have made things “worse.”  Had employee never acted, everyone would have been better off. 

Applying this admittedly simple logic to the Wrongful Birth suit here, I have a hard time seeing how these doctors made anything worse.  They did not cause this pregnancy, nor did they cause the Down syndrome condition. 

What do you think about this cause of action for Wrongful Birth?  Did the court get it right?

March 04 2012

0

Sh*t Law Students Don’t Say

posted by Christy

February 15 2012

1

George Clooney and The Rule Against Perpetuities?

posted by Allie

 

If you survived your first year of Property law, then you are familiar with the dreaded term “Rule Against Perpetuities.”  So confusing is the law, in fact, that in some states, a lawyer cannot be liable for misapplying this old doctrine. 

After wrapping up my Property law class, I was hopeful I’d never have to think about confusing future interests ever again.  Well, imagine my surprise when last weekend I heard the term out of the mouth of none other than George Clooney.

In the film, The Descendants, Clooney’s character is the trustee for a Hawaiian land trust valued in the multi-millions.  He and his cousins are in the middle of a forced sale of the precious Hawaii land because of the –you guessed it--- the Rule Against Perpetuities!

Unfortunately, during the entire film I couldn’t stop thinking about my Bar review notecards on “RAP.”  I was desperate to piece together how the rule was applying in the situation at hand in the film.  Certain, that once and for all, I could finally understand it! On the way home I even whipped out good ‘ol Wikipedia for more  info.  To make an already pretty pathetic situation worse, I even got in a bit of an argument with my husband after he tried to explain how he thought the rule applied based on the movie.  I was quick to correct my darling husband and assure him that the RAP was incredibly complex, so he shouldn’t even try.  He loved that, I can tell you. 

So once again, Property Law reared its ugly little head back into my life and took away the usual enjoyment that comes from staring at George Clooney on the screen.  Ahem, I mean the enjoyment that comes from watching great cinema. 

Is anyone else surprised the film decided to actually mention the phrase?  I mean how did the screenplay authors even know about it?

Page:  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »