About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 J. Juv. L. 66 (1992)
Preconception Negligence: Where Is the Zone of Danger

handle is hein.journals/jjuvl13 and id is 72 raw text is: PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE: WHERE IS THE ZONE OF DANGER? INTRODUCTION Although medical and legal authorities have for some time been willing to recognize limited rights of and circumscribed responsibilities toward an unborn child,' the full scope of those rights and responsibili- ties have yet to be delineated. The California Court of Appeal for the Second District recently found itself enshrouded in the fog that continues to surround this area of the law when it was asked to decide Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises, Inc..2 In Hegyes, the primary issue was whether mo- torists owe a duty of care to later conceived children whose injuries are the proximate result of the tortfeasor's act. This article will attempt to dispel the confusion surrounding that decision and to solidify the thinking upon which the concept of precon- ception negligence must be grounded. The divergent viewpoints that have emerged from the courts will be considered in detail, while current and developing trends are analyzed. I. WHAT IS PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE? Courts that have been faced with claims of preconception negligence have unanimously agreed in only one area; namely, there is great confu- sion as to the meaning of the term.3 Confusion often arises as to the proper denomination of these prenatal torts. Because this area of the law is new and fraught with emotion, both courts and commentators have often blurred the legal and theoretical distinctions among the actions.4 In Walker v. Mart,' the Arizona Supreme Court defined three cate- gories of actions under the umbrella of preconception torts. It termed the first category wrongful conception or pregnancy, in which parents of a normal but unplanned child seek damages after there has been a failure of a contraceptive device or procedure.6 The second category of 1. W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON, ON THE LAW OF TORTS, § 55, at 367 (5th ed. 1984). 2. 234 Cal. App. 3d 1103, 286 Cal. Rptr. 85 (1991). 3. See Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories, 106 Cal. App. 3d 812, 165 Cal. Rptr. 477 (1980); Walker v. Mart, 164 Ariz. 37, 790 P.2d 735 (1990); Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises, Inc., 234 Cal. App. 3d 1103, 286 Cal. Rptr. 85 (1991). 4. Walker v. Mart, 164 Ariz. 37, 39, 790 P.2d 735, 737 (1990). 5. Id. 6. Id.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most