On Sperm Banks and the Law (Lots of Law) - Law Blog - WSJ
Someday law professors might make hay out of this decision, handed down last week, about a 13 year-old girl who was allowed to sue a sperm bank for failing to detect that a sperm donor had a genetic defect. The decision has it all: tort law, contract law, family law — with some instructive civil procedure lessons (Statute of Limitations! Choice of Law!) thrown in for good measure.I find this sort of thing fascinating. I'm also usually annoyed at how few people in the media seem to get that "allowed to sue" and "found liable for" are different concepts. In this case, it was linked to from a respected health care site which breathlessly claimed that now you can "even be sued for donating sperm!" As if the donor were even a defendant here (not) or that the fact that the suit goes forward necessarily indicates liability. Sigh.
1 comment:
Okay, so I read the bits of the opinion that were not about choice of law or statute of limitations, which makes up the vast majority of the opinion.
I think the "allowed to sue" language reflects the fact that this was a motion to dismiss the claims. So, the journalists are trying to make it clear that the court did not rule in the girl's favor, but simply said her case could go forward on at least one count.
Specifically, her claims for product liability survived and if she amends her complaint to include evidence that she was the intended third-party-beneficiary that claim may survive, but as of now, she doesn't have enough.
I think the take away is that although the sperm bank got out of several causes of action based on the prohibition for suing under a theory of wrongful life, some claims remain.
There are problems with the ruling in my mind--> specifically, I don't see how the damage can ever be anything other than wrongful life.
That said, I bet there is a settlement in the works.
Post a Comment