## Facts

- In 1985, Lynn O’Hare Hegyes was injured in an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by an employee of Unjian Enterprises, Inc., and owned by Unjian.
- Lynn sued for her own injuries arising from the 1985 accident and settled that action.
- As part of her post-accident medical treatment, Lynn was fitted with a lumbo-peritoneal shunt to divert cerebrospinal fluid.
- In 1987, Lynn became pregnant with Cassondra Hegyes.
- During the pregnancy, the fetus compressed the shunt; physicians delivered Cassondra by Cesarean section 51 days premature on October 31, 1987.
- Cassondra alleged injuries associated with her premature birth and claimed those injuries were proximately caused by the negligence that caused Lynn’s 1985 injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether an ordinary negligence tortfeasor owes a duty of care to a child who was not yet conceived at the time of the allegedly negligent act.
2. Whether California should recognize a cause of action for “preconception negligence” against a non-professional, non-fiduciary defendant in a motor-vehicle accident context.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained Unjian’s demurrer without leave to amend.
- The court held Unjian owed no legally cognizable duty of care to Cassondra, who was conceived after the 1985 accident.
- The court reasoned that extending duty to later-conceived children in ordinary negligence would be an unwarranted expansion of negligence liability.
- The court relied on California authority recognizing preconception-related liability primarily in settings involving a special relationship (commonly physician-patient), which was absent here.
- The court cited policy concerns about indeterminate and potentially limitless liability, and concluded the asserted harm to a future, unconceived child was not sufficiently foreseeable to justify imposing duty on an ordinary driver/employer.
- A dissent would have recognized a duty and viewed foreseeability and plaintiff class limits differently.

## Legal Principles

- In California, absent a special relationship, ordinary negligence does not impose a duty of care to protect individuals who were not yet conceived at the time of the defendant’s allegedly negligent act.
- Recognition of preconception negligence claims turns on duty limits informed by foreseeability, proximate cause, and policy concerns about indeterminate liability.
- Demurrer is properly sustained without leave to amend when, on the pleaded facts, the defendant owed no duty as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend ordinary negligence duty to a later-conceived child alleging injury traceable to her mother’s earlier accident-related medical condition, and it affirmed dismissal because the defendant owed no duty to an unconceived plaintiff in these circumstances.


Hegyes v. Unjian Enters., Inc., 234 Cal. App. 3d 1103 (Ct. App. 1991)