Case Name: Richard DEASON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-06-25
Citations: 386 So. 2d 146
Docket Number: No. 7667
Parties: Richard DEASON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: STOKER, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 386
Pages: 146–151

Head Matter:
Richard DEASON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 7667.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
June 25, 1980.
Watson, Murchison, Crews, Arthur & Corkern, R. Raymond Arthur, Natchitoches, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gist, Methvin, Hughes & Munsterman, DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
LABORDE, Judge.
Plaintiffs seek damages in connection with an automobile accident which occurred on March 22, 1979 in Natchitoches, Louisiana. In their petition, plaintiffs seek recovery for the death of their unborn child, who was stillborn three (3) days subsequent to the accident. At the time of the accident the mother was 8V2 months pregnant. The report of the pathologist (according to paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' petition) indicated the child's death was attributable to respiratory distress, intrauterine secondary to trauma to placenta with widespread hemorrhage as a consequence of the mother being thrown against the steering wheel of her car.
Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action on the ground that Louisiana law does not allow recovery for the death of the unborn child.
The trial judge signed a judgment on November 14, 1979, sustaining defendant's exception and dismissed all claims of plaintiffs for the wrongful death and survival actions for the death of the unborn child. From this judgment plaintiffs have appealed.
The issue presented on this appeal is extremely narrow — may the parents of a stillborn child maintain an action for the wrongful death of that child?
Our answer is yes. We believe that Article 2315 of the Civil Code is broad enough to permit an action for the wrongful death of the stillborn child by the parents.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315 provides:
Art. 2315. Liability for acts causing damage; survival of action. Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.
The right to recover damages to property caused by an offense or quasi offense is a property right which, on the death of the obligee, is inherited by his legal, instituted, or irregular heirs, subject to the community rights of the surviving spouse.
The right to recover all other damages caused by an offense or quasi offense, if the injured person dies, shall survive for a period of one year from the death of the deceased in favor of: (1) the surviving spouse and child or children of the deceased, or either such spouse or such child or children; (2) the surviving father and mother of the deceased, or either of them, if he left no spouse or child surviving; and (3) the surviving brothers and sisters of the deceased, or any of them, if he left no spouse, child, or parent surviving. The survivors in whose favor this right of action survives may also recover the damages which they sustained through the wrongful death of the deceased. A right to recover damages under the provisions of this paragraph is a property right which, on the death of the survivor in whose favor the right of action survived, is inherited by his legal, instituted, or irregular heirs, whether suit has been instituted thereon by the survivor or not.
As used in this article, the words "child", "brother", "sister", "father", and "mother" include a child, brother, sister, father, and mother, by adoption, respectively. (Amended by Acts 1884, No. 71; Acts 1908, No. 120, § 1; Acts 1918, No. 159, § 1; Acts 1932, No. 159, § 1; Acts 1948, No. 333, § 1; Acts 1960, No. 30, § 1.)
We believe this has long been the law in Louisiana. The first reported case dealing with the rights of the unborn child was Cooper v. Blanck, 39 So.2d 352 (La.App.Orl. 1923).
Judge Westerfield discussed the rights of the unborn child. We quote from page 360, to-wit:
"We think it manifest that injury to a child at this period is in contemplation of law, injury to a living child, for which the child if it survives its birth, may maintain an action under Article 2315 of our Code, and if the child be killed at this period, before its birth, we see no reason why its parents cannot maintain an action for the death of their child."
On the same day the court decided Cooper v. Blanck, supra, it rendered a decision in suit # 9048, entitled Mrs. Pauline Johnson v. Southern New Orleans Light & Traction Co. In that unreported case, the court wrote:
"The argument of the defendant is that the infant before it is born is not a child, not a human being, that it is only a thing, a part of the anatomy of the mother, as are her organs. We cannot accept that theory. We believe that the infant is a child from the moment of conception, although life may be in a state of suspended animation, the subject of love, affection and hope and that the injury or killing of it in its mother's womb is covered by the Statute of 1884 (Wrongful Death) and gives its bereaved parents a right of action against the guilty parties for their grief and mental anguish."
Again in the case of Valence v. Louisiana Power and Light Company, 50 So.2d 847 (Orleans Appeal 1951), the court speaks of the right of the unborn child. On page 849, the court stated:
"We cannot be persuaded that, under no circumstances, should there be awarded damages to the parents of the unborn child if such fetus, while in its mother's womb, has been so injured that it cannot be born alive. We are certain that the redactors of our . code had no such purpose in mind in enacting Article 28.
There can be no doubt at all that there could be recovery for a result of an accident which might cause sterility, or which might otherwise prevent parents from having children. If, as the result of actionable negligence, a husband or a wife should be so injured that either, in the future could not expect to produce children, surely, this would be taken into consideration as an item of damage. It necessarily follows, we think, that when parents are actually expecting the arrival of a child, and they are deprived of the fruition of that great expectation by the actionable negligence of someone else, they may recover from the tortfeasor as an item of damage for that particular loss."
In conclusion the court stated in the Valence case at page 850 that:
"And that is our conclusion here — that as a matter of law, there may be recovery by the parents where there is actionable negligence which causes such injury to a viable fetus as to prevent its being born alive, but that there must be strict proof that the actionable negligence was the cause of the unfortunate occurrence."
See also, 24 Tulane Law Review 435; 6 Loyola Law Review 157, 12 Louisiana Law Review 519; and 20 Louisiana Law Review 810.
Our brothers on the First Circuit have recently held in favor of the rights of the unborn child. See Danos v. St. Pierre, 383 So.2d 1019 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1980) and Diefenderfer v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 383 So.2d 1032 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1980). The case of Ezell v. Morrison, 380 So.2d 664 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980) is also on point and grants relief to the parents as sought in this case.
We are not unaware of the authorities urged by appellee. Appellee relies on Louisiana Civil Code Articles 28 and 29 which provides as follows:
"Art. 28. Children born dead are considered as if they had never been born or conceived."
"Art. 29. Children in the mother's womb are considered, in whatever relates to themselves, as if they were already born; thus the inheritances which devolve to them before their birth, and which may belong to them, are kept for them, and curators are assigned to take care of their estates for their benefit."
In addition to Article 28 the trial court relied upon the case of Wascom v. American Indemnity Corporation, 348 So.2d 128, (La. App. 1st Cir. 1977) which decision is based on the case of Youman v. McConnell, 7 La.App. 315, and Article 28 of the Louisiana Civil Code. The Wascom case held that a wrongful death action cannot be maintained for the death of an unborn child.
On appeal appellee urges the same argument as before the trial court. We cannot see any merit in appellee's claim. The Was-com case, upon which they rely, was clearly reversed by the First Circuit by the recent decisions of Danos and Diefenderfer, supra.
Concerning the application of Article 28 to the present case we agree fully with Professor Stone when he answers that same argument at page 95 of Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Tort Doctrine, Vol. 12, (1977), as follows:
"In the Valence case such strict proof was not forthcoming. The defendant in that case had urged article 28 of the Civil Code as determinative of the matter where it provides that "Children born dead are considered as if they had never been born or conceived." The court answered that "we are certain that the redactors of our Code had no such purpose in mind in enacting article 28." It should be pointed out that article 28 was adopted in 1825 at a time when there was no action for wrongful death and its reference was to the problem in successions. Hence it can be argued that in 1884 when the Code was amended to provide an action for wrongful death, this constituted an amendment of article 28 to remove the new action from the restriction of the earlier article."
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside. The exception of no right of action filed by defendants is overruled and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs of this appeal are taxed against defendant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STOKER, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
DOMENGEAUX and DOUCET, JJ., concur in the reasons of the majority opinion, and for the additional reasons assigned in the concurring opinion of STOKER, J.
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
CUTRER and SWIFT, JJ., dissent for reasons given by GUIDRY, J.
CULPEPPER, J., dissents for the reasons stated by GUIDRY, J., and for the reason the legislature should decide whether to change Civil Code Article 28 in a comprehensible statute dealing with inheritance, survival action, abortion and all related problems.
. Comment, Survival of Actions in Article 2315 of the Louisiana Civil Code: The Victim's Action and the Wrongful Death Action, 43 Tul.L. Rev. 330 (1969).