Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital

Appellate Court of Illinois · Torts

Tortsprenatal injuriespreconception negligencedutyforeseeabilityprenatal injurypreconception tortborn alive

Facts

The complaint alleged that in 1965, when Emma Murphy Renslow was 13 years old, Mennonite Hospital and Dr. Hans Stroink negligently transfused her with A-RH positive blood even though her blood type was A-RH negative. The complaint further alleged that this improper transfusion sensitized Emma's blood, a condition not discovered until her pregnancy in 1973. Because of that sensitization, labor was induced prematurely in 1974, and Leah Ann was born jaundiced, required two complete exchange transfusions, and suffered permanent nervous system and brain damage. Leah Ann had not been conceived at the time of the allegedly negligent transfusions.

Issue

Whether a child born alive may maintain an action for prenatal personal injuries when the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct occurred before the child's conception, but the child's injury occurred after conception and before birth. More specifically, the question was whether the defendants owed any duty to Leah Ann in 1965.

Rule

Illinois recognizes a cause of action for prenatal personal injuries to a child born alive, and recovery is not barred merely because the defendant's wrongful conduct occurred before the child's conception. If the child was injured after conception, and duty and causation can be established, the complaint states a cause of action.

🔒

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 Peoria, Illinois, Dr. Nora Velez negligently administered an incompatible blood product to 15-year-old Tessa Long during surgery at Riverbend Community Hospital. Eight years later, after Tessa became pregnant, her fetus allegedly developed a blood-related condition caused by that earlier sensitization, and her son Owen was born alive with permanent neurological injuries.

If Owen sues the doctor and hospital for his own injuries, which is the best argument against dismissal at the pleading stage?

Explanation. The majority treated this kind of claim as one for prenatal personal injury where the child's injury occurs after conception, even though the negligent act occurred earlier. A child born alive may state such a claim if duty and causation can be established; preconception timing alone does not defeat the action. (Derived from Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital (n.d.).)