Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Liability Widens for Fetal Death Caused by Doctors
Overturning a 19-year-old precedent, the Court of Appeals of New York held on April 1 that a woman may recover damages for emotional distress for medical malpractice that causes a miscarriage or stillbirth, even if she personally suffers no physical injury. Broadnax v. Gonzalez (No. 30) and Fahey v. Canino (No. 31), 2004 NY LEXIS 603 (4/1/04). In a 6-1 opinion, the court abandoned the rule it adopted in Tebbutt v. Virostek, 65 NY2d 931 (1985), which set a precedent that a mother could recover for emotional injuries related to the stillbirth of her child only if she suffered an independent physical injury due to the negligence of the attending physician.
In an opinion by Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt, the Court of Appeals ruled that “even in the absence of an independent injury, medical malpractice resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth should be construed as a violation of a duty of care to the expectant mother, entitling her to damages for emotional distress.” The court said its decision has no impact on a 1969 ruling that bars wrongful death actions under similar circumstances. Endresz v. Friedberg, 24 NY2d 478
In footnotes, the court made clear that it is permitting recovery just by the mother, not the father, and only for the emotional distress directly connected to a miscarriage or stillbirth caused by medical malpractice. A dissent said the decision represents only a modest expansion of tort liability.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.