## Facts

- Bari Stallman, about five months pregnant, was involved in an automobile collision with Clarence Youngquist.
- Bari’s child, Lindsay Stallman, was later born alive; the complaint alleged prenatal injuries from being “thrown about” in utero, with harm becoming apparent after birth.
- Lindsay, by her father and next friend, sued Bari and Youngquist for negligence in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- The count at issue alleged Bari’s negligent driving caused Lindsay’s prenatal injuries.
- Bari moved for summary judgment, arguing Illinois law did not recognize a claim by a child against her mother for unintentional prenatal injuries.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bari; the appellate court reversed and remanded; the Illinois Supreme Court allowed Bari’s appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois recognizes a cause of action by a child, born alive, against her mother for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries.
2. Whether the parental immunity doctrine in Illinois would bar such a claim (if it otherwise existed).

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for Bari on the claim against the mother.
- The court held Illinois does not recognize a cause of action by or on behalf of a fetus subsequently born alive against its mother for unintentional prenatal injuries.
- The court remanded for further proceedings on remaining claims not involving the mother’s liability.
- Because it found no cause of action existed, the court did not decide the parental immunity issue.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois law does not permit a negligence action by a child against her mother for unintentional conduct during pregnancy alleged to have caused prenatal injury.
- Recognizing such liability would require courts to define and enforce a broad “reasonable prenatal conduct” duty across ordinary life activities, creating unworkable standards and inconsistent application.
- Imposing civil liability for maternal prenatal conduct raises serious concerns about privacy and bodily integrity by placing pregnancy-related choices under judicial scrutiny.
- The prohibition applies to suits against the mother; it does not disturb actions allowing children to recover for prenatal injuries caused by third parties.

## Conclusion

The court refused to create maternal tort liability for unintentional prenatal injuries, reasoning that defining and enforcing a general duty of reasonable prenatal care would be impracticable and would intrude on a pregnant woman’s privacy and bodily integrity; it therefore reinstated summary judgment for the mother and left parental immunity unresolved.


Stallman v. Youngquist, 531 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. 1988)