Facts
- Christine MacDonald, thirty-two weeks pregnant, was involved in a motor-vehicle collision in Worcester, Massachusetts.
- The child, Andre Remy, was delivered by emergency cesarean section four days later, prematurely.
- The child was hospitalized for twenty-three days and allegedly developed ongoing respiratory distress and asthma associated with prematurity.
- For summary-judgment purposes, the court accepted that the mother’s negligent driving caused the accident, premature birth, and resulting injuries.
- The child, through her father as next friend, sued the mother in negligence for prenatal injuries; claims against the other driver and vehicle owner proceeded separately.
Issues
- Whether a child born alive may maintain a tort action against her mother for personal injuries incurred in utero due to the mother’s negligence.
- Whether Massachusetts common law recognizes a legal duty requiring a pregnant woman to refrain from negligent conduct that may physically harm her unborn child.
- Whether the general duty of reasonable care in operating a motor vehicle supplies a basis for imposing maternal liability to the subsequently born child for prenatal injuries.
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed summary judgment for the mother.
- The court held that Massachusetts common law does not impose on a pregnant woman a tort duty of care to her unborn child to refrain from negligent conduct that may result in physical harm.
- The court rejected reliance on ordinary motor-vehicle negligence principles as a basis to extend maternal liability for prenatal injuries.
- The court reasoned that duty determinations rest on existing social values and policy, and it found no clear, settled policy supporting an enforceable maternal duty in this context.
Legal Principles
- Negligence liability requires proof of a legal duty of care; whether a duty exists is a common-law question informed by social values, customs, and policy.
- Massachusetts does not recognize a general duty, enforceable in tort by a child after birth, requiring a pregnant woman to avoid negligent conduct that may harm the fetus.
- The general duty of motorists to drive with reasonable care does not, by itself, create maternal liability to the child for prenatal injuries caused by the mother’s negligent driving.
- Courts may decline to recognize a duty where defining enforceable standards would be unworkable and would invite open-ended litigation over a wide range of pregnancy-related conduct.
Conclusion
The court held that, under Massachusetts common law, a child born alive cannot sue her mother for prenatal injuries allegedly caused by the mother’s negligence, including negligent driving, because the law does not recognize a maternal duty of care to the unborn child in these circumstances.