Remy v. MacDonald

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Torts

TortsNegligencePrenatal injuriesDutydutynegligenceprenatal injuryunborn child

Facts

Christine MacDonald was driving at a Worcester intersection when her car was struck by another vehicle while she was thirty-two weeks pregnant with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born by emergency caesarian section four days later, was hospitalized for twenty-three days, and allegedly suffered breathing problems, respiratory distress, and asthma associated with her premature birth. For purposes of the decision, the court accepted as true the plaintiff's allegation that her mother's negligent driving caused the accident, which led to the premature birth and resulting injuries. The plaintiff sought to hold her mother liable in negligence for those prenatal injuries.

Issue

Whether a child born alive may maintain a negligence action against her mother for personal injuries incurred before birth because of the mother's allegedly negligent conduct. More specifically, whether a pregnant woman owes a legal duty of care to her unborn child to refrain from negligent conduct that may physically harm the child.

Rule

A negligence claim requires a legal duty of care, and whether such a duty exists is determined by common law with reference to existing social values, customs, and appropriate social policy. Massachusetts does not recognize a legal duty of care owed by a pregnant woman to her unborn child for the mother's own negligent conduct, including alleged negligence in operating a motor vehicle.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Springfield, Massachusetts, Dana Ruiz was eight months pregnant when she carelessly backed her car through a red light and collided with a delivery van. Her son was born alive two days later with complications allegedly caused by the premature birth. The child, through a guardian, sues Dana for negligence.

Under the governing Massachusetts rule, what is the strongest basis for judgment in Dana's favor?

Explanation. A negligence claim requires a legal duty. Massachusetts does not recognize a legal duty of care owed by a pregnant woman to her unborn child for prenatal injuries allegedly caused by the mother's own negligent conduct, including negligent driving. The decision is expressly about duty, not parental immunity, and Massachusetts does allow actions for prenatal injuries caused by third parties. (Derived from Remy v. MacDonald (n.d.).)