Case Name: Thomas Edwin Allaire v. The St. Luke's Hospital et al.
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1900-02-19
Citations: 184 Ill. 359
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Edwin Allaire v. The St. Luke’s Hospital et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 359–374

Head Matter:
Thomas Edwin Allaire v. The St. Luke’s Hospital et al.
Opinion filed February 19, 1900.
Actions and defenses—action does not lie for injuries to plaintiff before birth. An action does not lie to recover damages for an injury to the plaintiff while in his mother’s womb, since the right is not given by statute, and the courts of common law, while indulging the legal fiction that an unborn child may be regarded as in esse for some purposes, when for its benefit, have never gone to the extent of sustaining an action by an infant for injuries occasioned before its birthj( (Boggs, J., dissenting.)
Allaire v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 76 Ill. App. 441, affirmed.
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;—heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.
The amended declaration in this case, omitting the caption, is in the words and figures as follows:
“The said plaintiff, Thomas Edwin Allaire, an infant of tender age, by Ada A. Allaire, his next friend, and Philetus Smith, his attorney, by leave of the court first had, for amended declaration, complains of the said defendants, both bodies politic and corporate, and doing business at the city of Chicago, in said county, under and by virtue of the laws of said State, in a plea of trespass on the case; for that, heretofore, to-wit, on or about the second day of February, A. D. 1896, at and in the said city, said defendants were possessed of and using a certain building there situate, as a hospital for the care, curing and treatment of sick persons, and of ladies therein, during the time before, at and after accouchement and parturition and of convalescence thereafter, and for the care, careful treatment and medical diligence in the safe delivery of infants in ventre de sa mere, all for hire and reward in that behalf. The said Ada A. Allaire, then within ten days, as near as may be, for the natural birth of plaintiff, as the said defendants then and there well knew and had knowledge, then and there, on said last-named day, at the request and solicition of the said defendants, for hire and reward in that behalf to be paid by her, became and was a patient of said defendants in the said building, therein to be carefully kept, cared for, housed and medically treated until the birth of plaintiff and during her convalescence thereafter, and for such hire and reward so to be paid then and there became and was such patient of defendants, for the use and benefit of plaintiff, in that he also should receive from'said defendants all due care and treatment, and should be safely delivered by birth, in the course of nature, without personal harm. And thereupon it then and there became and was the duty of defendants to carefully and comfortably house, shelter and keep the said Ada A. Allaire in said building, and to extend to and bestow upon her person great care and diligence, before, during and after plaintiff’s birth,—all this for the well-being of the said Ada A. Allaire as also for the benefit of the plaintiff, to the end and purpose that he also should receive great and due care from said defendants and be naturally born of his mother without injury or harm to his person.
“And the plaintiff further avers, that before, on and after the day first aforesaid, at and in the said building, the said defendants were possessed of and using a certain elevator, so-called, for the ■ conveyance of patients therein through a shaft from one floor of said building to other floors therein, and the said Ada A. Allaire, then being such patient, as aforesaid, on said day last named, and in obedience- to defendants’ request and direction so to do, entered into .such elevator and upon the floor thereof, and then and there sat down upon a common, all-wooden chair on said floor that had there been placed in its then position by defendants, to be carried and ele vated thereon from the second floor of said building to the floor of the obstetrical department thereof above said second floor, she then and there being assured by defendants that it was and would be perfectly safe for her to be seated in said chair in its then position, to-be carried upward in said elevator, and that no harm could come to her for so doing, defendants then and there well knowing that said Ada A. Allaire was then and there near to confinement for the natural birth of plaintiff. And thereupon it became and was the duty of defendants to have and keep said elevator and shaft, and each and every part thereof, in a proper, safe and secure condition, and keep the said mother of plaintiff, and the plaintiff, safely and without personal harm or injury in the use and enjoyment thereof, and to so place and condition the said mother therein and upon said floor and chair, as that neither she nor the plaintiff, then in ventre de sa mere, should in any way be injured or personally harmed while therein and being carried thereby to said floor above, whither the said mother was then and there directed by defendants, yet the defendants did not nor would regard their duty in that behalf, but, on the contrary thereof, negligently and carelessly, at the place and on the day last named, and when and while the said mother of plaintiff, with all due care on her part, was then and there so conditioned and seated in said chair and being rapidly carried upward in said elevator, failed and neglected to have and keep said shaft, elevator and chair in a safe and secure condition and position and to have and keep the car of the said elevator enclosed, and then and there carelessly, negligently and heedlessly failed to properly load and operate said elevator, and did then and there so carelessly and negligently operate the same that when and while the said Ada A. Allaire was so being rapidly carried upward therein and thereon, the top of said chair suddenly and with great force struck a projection in and on the side of said shaft, whereby said chair, with said mother thereon sitting, was instantly and with great power crushed to the floor of said elevator car, the said car then and there being' unenclosed and open, and said mother of plaintiff, and the plaintiff, then and there with great force and violence thrown and hurled from and off said chair to the floor of said car and to the edge of said floor opposite said chair, and by reason thereof and the swift upward motion of said elevator car the left limb of said mother was then and there and thereby thrown and caught between the edge of said floor and a projection in said shaft, and was then and thereby greatly cut, mangled, bruised and the bones thereof broken, and said mother greatly and grievously bruised, hurt, jammed and wounded in her left hip, thigh, side and body, and other great personal injuries, by reason of said negligence of defendants, said Ada A. Allaire then and thereby received and sustained, and that said mother, by reason of her said personal injuries, and the manner, way and time in which the same were so received and sustained, was then and there put in great terror and fear that death was then for herself and plaintiff unborn, so that and thereby, and as the direct, proximate and natural cause of said injuries to,his said mother, said plaintiff was then and there, and by reason of defendants’ said negligence, greatly injured, strained, bruised, wounded in his left limb, left side, left hip, left arm and left hand, so that at his birth, on the sixth day of February, A. D. 1886, his left foot, left limb, left side and left hand were and became, and hitherto have been and still are, wasted, withered and atrophied, and his said foot smaller than natural by more than one-half, and made thereby to turn inward and the sole thereof upward, and his said limb shorter than natural by more than four inches, and his said hip, side and arm, by reason of said negligence and injuries, became and are made shrunken, atrophied and paralytic, and his said limb without flesh thereon, and from thfence hitherto have so been and still are, and said plaintiff thereby greatly and sadly crippled for life, and in endeavoring to be cured and healed of his said injuries has laid out and expended the sum of two thousand dollars (§2000) and more, (the said Ada A. Allaire having heretofore, for a valuable consideration, settled with the said defendants for and released them from all damages for said injuries to herself alone,) to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of fifty thousand dollars (§50,000,) and therefore he brings his suit,” etc.
The general demurrer was filed by the defendants, which was sustained by the court and judgment was rendered for the defendants. An appeal was thereupon taken to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the lower court has been affirmed. The present appeal is from such judgment of affirmance.
Philetus Smith, for appellant:
As tending to direct judicial thought to the controlling question in this case, yet without settling it and with little regard to logical order, we cite pro and con the following cases and authorities: Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. Jr. 227; 1 Blackstone’s Com. 130; Blasson v. Blasson, 2 DeG., J. & S. 665; 1 Blackstone, (Brown & Hadley’s Com. Waite’s Notes) 105; American Text Book of Obstetrics, (ed. of 1895) 925; 2 Witthaus & Becker’s Med. Juris. (1894,) 378, et seq.; Phillips v. Herron, 45 N. E. Rep. 720; Turley v. Turley, 11 Ohio St. 173; McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340; Const. 1870, sec. 19, art. 2, Bill of Rights; Dietrich v. Inhabitants, 138 Mass. 14; Walker v. Railway Co. 28 L. R. (Ire.) 69; The George & Richard, L. R. 3 Adm. & Eccl. 466; Nelson v. Railway Co. 78 Tex. 621; Blake v. Railroad Co. 18 Q. B. 93; Lord Campbell’s Act, 9 and 10 Vic. chap. 93.
An infant en ventre sa mere is supposed, in law, to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy or a surrender of a copy-hold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it, and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were actually born. Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. Jr. 227; Blackstone’s Com. 130.
In the case of Phillips v. Herron, 45 N. E. Rep. 72, it was held that a child quick in útero is a person in being.
Life is thd immediate gift of God—a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as the infant is able to stir in its mother’s womb. 1 Blackstone’s Com. 130.
Our claim is, that “the rights of persons” and “the rights of things” are absolutely inter-dependent and inseparable; that it is, in effect, a contradiction of terms to say that a person may have “the rights of things” and not “the rights of persons.” “Every person ought to find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he may receive in his person, property or reputation. He ought to obtain, by law, right and justice freely and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay.” Const. 1870, sec. 19, art. 2, Bill of Rights.
Lynden Evans, for appellees:
There is no statute nor any common law authority to sustain this action. Dietrich v. Inhabitants, 138 Mass. 14; Walker v. Railway Co. 28 L. R. (Ire.) 69; Francis’ Legal Maxims, Preface.
The alleged analogy in chancery, although academic, is inapplicable,. Grotius de' Equitate, sec. 3; Heard v. Stamford, Cas. temp. Talb. 173; Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. sec. 425; Story’s Eq. Jur. sec. 616; 10 and 11 William III, chap. 16; Palmer v. Cracroft, 2 Vern. 580.
The alleged analogy from criminal law is inapplicable. Hale’s P. C. 433; Rex v. Enoch, 5 C. & P. 539; Rex v. Brain, 6 id. 349; Rex v. Poulton, 5 id; 329; 4 Blackstone’s Com. 198; Year Books, 1 Edw. III, 23, pl. 18; Fitz. Abr. pl. 4; 1 Fleta, chap. 35, sec. 3; Crim. Code, sec. 3.
The alleged analogy from civil, ecclesiastical and admiralty law is inapplicable. Wharton on Negligence, (ed. of 1874) sec. 9a, 10; Benedict on Administrators, 58, secs. 111-113.
The declaration fails to show any legal duty of the defendants, as a hospital, to the plaintiff, or any breach thereof. Feoffees v. Ross, 12 C. & F. 506; Railway Co. v. Artist, 60 Fed. Rep. 365; Holliday v. St. Leonards, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 192; Gooch v. Association, 109 Mass. 567; McDonald v. Hospital, 120 id. 432; Hughes v. Monroe, 4 N. E. Rep. 407; Williamson v. Louisville, etc. 15 Ky. 629; Downs v. Harper, 25 L. R. A. 602; Joel v. Woman’s Hospital, 35 N. Y. Sup. 37.
The plaintiff is estopped by the settlement with his mother. 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 476; Dietrich v. Inhabitants, 138 Mass. 17; 1 Fleta, chap. 35, sec. 2.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
In deciding this case the Appellate Court delivered the following opinion:
"The action is not given by any statute, and if maintainable it must be so by the common law, and, therefor^, the question is whether, at common law, the action can be maintained. Had the plaintiff, at the .time of the alleged injury, in contemplation of the common law, such distinct and independent existence that he may maintain the action, or was he, in view of the common law, a part of his mother? If the former, it would seem the action can be maintained; but if the latter, not, because, if a part of his mother, the injury was to her- and not to the plaintiff.
"Appellant's counsel has argued the case learnedly and with not a little industry, but has cited only two cases in which it was attempted to maintain actions involving the question presented here, namely, Dietrich, Admr. v. Inhabitants, etc. 138 Mass. 14, (decided in 1884,) and Walker v. Great Northern Railway Co. 28 L. R. Ire. 69, (decided in 1891.) In the former case the facts were, that the mother, when advanced four or five months in pregnancy, slipped and fell by reason of a defect in the highway, the consequence of which was a miscarriage. The plaintiff was alive when delivered, but was too little advanced in foetal life to survive its premature birth. The action was brought by the administrator of the deceased infant under a statute authorizing an action for the benefit of the mother or next of kin. The trial and Supreme Courts both held that the action could not be maintained, the latter court saying: 'Taking all of the foregoing considerations into account, and further, that as the unborn child was a part of the mother at the time of the injury, any damage to it which was not too remote to be recovered for at all was recoverable by her, we think it clear that the statute sued upon does not embrace the plaintiff's intestate, within its meaning.'
"In Walker v. Great Northern Railway Co. the statement of claim was, substantially, that Annie Walker, mother of the plaintiff, while quick with child, became a passenger on the defendant's railway and was so received by the defendant, and that the defendant so carelessly and negligently conducted itself in carrying said Annie Walker and in managing its railway, that the plaintiff was thereby injured, crippled and deformed. A demurrer was sustained to the statement of claim, all the judges concurring in the opinion that it was defective in not showing a contractual relation between the plaintiff and the railway company, but merely averring a contract between the mother of the plaintiff and the company. The question, however, whether such an action could be maintained by an infant in its mother's womb at the time of the alleged injury could under any circumstances be maintained, was discussed elaborately and with great learning both by court and counsel. . O'Brien, C. J., after discussing the question, expressly declined to commit himself by an opinion, leaving it, as he said, 'an open question,' so far as he was concerned. Harrison, J., while basing his decision on the insufficiency of the statement of claim, says in his opinion: 'When the accident occurred on. the - 12-th of June the plaintiff was still un born and had no existence apart from her mother, who was the only person whom the defendants contracted to carry on their line, ' etc. Johnson, J., in his opinion says: 'As a matter of fact, when the act of negligence occurred the plaintiff was not in esse,—was not a person or a passenger or a human being. Her age and her existence are reckoned from her birth, and no precedent has been found for this action. ' Again, commenting on the claim of liability, the same learned judge says: 'If it did not spring out of contract, it must, I apprehend, have arisen, if at all, from the relative situation and circumstances of the defendant and plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of the act of negligence. But at that time the plaintiff had no actual existence,—was not a human being and was not a passenger in fact; as Lord Coke says, the plaintiff was then pars viseerum matris, and we have not been referred to any authority or principle to show that a legal duty has ever been held to arise toward that which was not 'in esse in fact and has only a fictitious existence in law, so as to render a negligent act a breach of duty. ' O'Brien, Associate J., in his opinion says of the action: 'It is admitted that such a thing was never heard of before, and yet the circumstances which would give rise to such a claim must at one time or another have existed.' In Dietrich v. Inhabitants, etc. supra, the court says: 'But no case, so far as we know, has ever decided that if the infant survived it could maintain an action for injuries received by it while in its mother's womb.'
"Appellant's counsel substantially admits that there is no precedent for the action. While it is true that this is not conclusive that the action may not be maintained, yet in view of the fact that, as said by Mr. Associate Justice O'Brien, similar circumstances must have before occurred, it is entitled to great weight, especially when the right to maintain the action is, to say the least, doubtful. Mr. Associate Justice O'Brien, in Walker v. Great Northern Railway Co. says: 'The law is, in some respects, a stream, that gathers accretions, with time, from new relations and conditions. But it is also a landmark that forbids advance on defined rights and engagements; and if these are to be altered,—if new rights and engagements are to be created,—that is the province of legislation and not decision.' In this we fully concur. That a child before birth is, in fact, a part of the mother and is only severed from her at birth, cannot, we think, be successfully disputed. The doctrine of the civil law and the ecclesiastical and admiralty courts, therefore, that an unborn child may be regarded as in esse for some purposes, when for its benefit, is a mere legal fiction, which, so far as we have been able to discover, has not been indulged in by the courts of common law to the extent of allowing an action by an infant for injuries occasioned before its birth. If the action can be maintained, it necessarily follows that an infant may maintain an action against its own mother for injuries occasioned by the negligence of the mother while pregnant with it. We are of opinion that the action will not lie. The judgment will be affirmed."
We concur in the foregoing views, and in the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.