Mother being sued...UL?

Factual Questions
1

In the May 4, 2000 addition of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), there was a feature article entitled, “Motherhood? It’s a child’s life.” In the article, the writers stated:
“In one case in the United States, a mother was sued for allowing herself to be struck by a car while pregnant, thereby giving birth to a brain-damaged baby.”

Did this really happen? When? Where? Or are these writers just making up stuff to shock the Australian public? None of the letters to the editor even questioned this little snippet, but I’ve never heard anything about this case and I’m pretty sure it would have been publicized in the U.S. if it had really happened.

2

That’s bizarre and I doubt it’s true. They may have gotten something backwards…

I believe that if you hit a car with a pregnant woman in it and she loses the baby you can be found guilty of manslaughter. Maybe something like this happened and the would-have-been mother sued and the papers got it backwards somehow.

Obviously I have no idea…just guessing here.

3

I don’t have any knowledge of a specific case where this might have happened, but I can see how a lawyer might have pleaded such a case in a way that a court might recognize it.

The legal rights of a minor are normally invoked through a legal representative, which in most cases is the child’s parent. However, where the child might have a claim for legal damages against a parent (it happens), the court will appoint an independent legal guardian for the child, and the legal guardian may bring suit against the parent on the child’s behalf.

So far, so good. If the mother was partially negligent in causing the crash-- let’s say the other guy ran a red light, but the mother was travelling too fast to slow down-- she will be partially liable to people who are damaged as a result of her negligence. This would include the child. In fact, claims by a child riding in a car that the parent crashes are not unusual-- they happen often because the parent is insured, so the child is realy recovering money from the insurance company, not daddy or mommy.

Ok, here’s the tricky part: the child was unborn at the time of the accident. This is a little thornier, but many american courts have recognized that a fetus does enjoy some protectible legal rights. For example, babies born with birth defects caused by the mother taking Thalidomide during pregnancy were able to sue the makers of the drug for their injuries, even though those injuries occured prior to birth. Some courts have also recognized “wrongful life” lawsuits by children injured in botched abortion attempts, and a variety of other creative causes of action.

Putting it all together, a crafty lawyer might look at a situation where mommy was hit by an uninsured driver, and see that the only deep pocket in the case is mommy’s own insurance company. So the lawyer has an independent guardian appointed for the child, and sues mommy for her own negligence in causing the accident (and, of counse, mommy is happy to admit to that negligence, much ot the chagrin of the insurance company lawyer defending the case). Voila!

(Ok, I skipped over the part about mommy “allowing” her car to be hit, but I’ll chalk that up to sloppy journalism. In any event, I’m sure a crafty lawuer could come up with a legally sound argument that would still justify a lawsuit against the mother.)

4

I seem to recall hearing about this case too. As I recall, it was the father who was suing the mother, the point being that the parents’ insurance company cough up big bucks.

I also seem to recall that the case was thrown out because the mother/defendant would also benefit from the suit, thus, had a conflict of interest.

5

You all interpreted that differently than I did. I took “for allowing herself to be struck by a car” to mean that she herself was struck (like walking across a street or something).

6

[Insurance Lawyer hat: ON]
I believe this could happen for the same reason you often see wives suing husbands or children suing parents for injuries recieved in car accidents where they were all passengers in the same vehicle.

Many states (including mine) do not have what is known as a “direct action” law which allows you to sue an insurance company directly. For instance, if you run into me, I must file suit against you, not your insurance company.

So, what happens if Mr. is driving and runs the car into a tree, thereby injuring Mrs.? Mr. may have an insurance policy under which Mrs. could recover, but you cannot sue the insurer directly. Mrs. has to sue Mr. and if she is sucessful, she can recover from the insurer. Mr. and Mrs.'s don’t really have opposing interests – it’s just the proper procedural way of obtaining insurance benefits.

Something similar could have happened in this case. The mother may have had a liability policy which would cover judgments against her. If the unborn child (through its representatives) could show that some portion of the accident was caused by the mother’s negligence and thereby get a judgment against the mother, the family could collect the money from the insurer.

Bottom line: suits between family members are often about collecting insurance money that would otherwise be unavailable.
[insurance lawyer hat: OFF]

That being said, I’ve never heard of this case.