Craziest court ruling of 2005
Posted by Moonage on 13 Jun 2005 | Tagged as: The Legal Process
David Bernstein of The Volokh Conspiracy makes this observation:
My nominee, not surprsingly, is from New Jersey (which provides several other candidates), Canesi ex rel. Canesi v. Wilson 158 N.J. 490, 730 A.2d 805 (1999). Mother takes Provera during pregnancy. PDR tells physician to warn mother about possibility of congenital defects, including limb reduction defects. Doctor negligently fails to warn. Mother gives birth. Baby has limb reduction defect. Scientific evidence shifts. Evidence accumulates that Provera does not cause limb reductions. PDR drops warning. Mother sues doctor for "wrongful birth." None of mother’s experts is willing to testify that there is any relationship between Provera and limb reduction defects. New Jersey Supreme Court nevertheless holds that mother should be able to recover the costs of raising her baby, because she likely would have aborted the baby had she been informed of the risks from Provera.
No correlation, no connection, but, they assume the mother would have aborted if she had known the risks of Provera. Although no lawyer, I’m stumped. David’s stumped. I have a feeling we’ll get a better explanation when it goes to the "the next level". Volokh’s fantastic at following interesting court cases. I hope they pursue this one.
No Comments »
