Title: Amy Hamilton, individually, and on behalf of her stillborn son v. Dr. Warren Scott et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1100192
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 2012

R e l : 05/18/2012 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r 
o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 
1100192 
Amy Hamilton, i n d i v i d u a l l y and 
on behalf of 
her s t i l l b o r n 
son 
v. 
Dr. Warren Scott e t a l . 
Appeal from DeKalb C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-06-149) 
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g 
PARKER, J u s t i c e . 
T h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f 
F e b r u a r y 17, 2012, 
i s 
withdrawn, 
and t h e f o l l o w i n g i s 
s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . 
1100192 
Amy H a m i l t o n , i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f of her 
s t i l l b o r n 
son, 
sued Dr. 
John B l a k e l y I s b e l l , 
Dr. S t e v e n C o u l t e r , 
Dr. 
Warren 
S c o t t , 
and 
the 
I s b e l l 
M e d i c a l 
Group 
("IMG") 
(Dr. 
I s b e l l , 
Dr. 
C o u l t e r , 
Dr. 
S c o t t , 
and 
IMG 
are 
h e r e i n a f t e r 
sometimes r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "the d e f e n d a n t s " ) , 
as 
w e l l as s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s , c l a i m i n g t h a t 
t h e i r 
n e g l i g e n t 
and wanton a c t s 
had 
w r o n g f u l l y 
caused 
the 
d e a t h of 
her 
son 
and 
a l s o caused her 
t o 
s u f f e r 
e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s . 
The DeKalb C i r c u i t C o u r t e n t e r e d a summary judgment 
i n 
f a v o r 
of 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s , 
h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n 
c o u l d not 
be 
m a i n t a i n e d 
f o r the d e a t h of an 
unborn 
c h i l d who 
d i e d b e f o r e 
he was 
v i a b l e . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a l s o 
h e l d t h a t H a m i l t o n was 
not i n the "zone of danger" and, 
t h u s , 
c o u l d not r e c o v e r damages f o r e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s . 
We 
r e v e r s e 
i n p a r t , a f f i r m i n p a r t , and remand. 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l 
H i s t o r y  
A. 
H a m i l t o n ' s pregnancy and m e d i c a l 
c a r e
1 
1 I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the s t a n d a r d 
of r e v i e w 
i n an 
a p p e a l 
from a summary judgment and 
as n o t e d 
i n the 
" S t a n d a r d 
of 
Review" s e c t i o n of t h i s o p i n i o n , we have r e v i e w e d the 
r e c o r d 
i n the 
l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o H a m i l t o n , the nonmovant; the 
f a c t s 
r e g a r d i n g 
H a m i l t o n ' s 
pregnancy 
and 
t r e a t m e n t 
are 
p r e s e n t e d 
i n l i g h t of t h a t s t a n d a r d . 
Hobson v. American C a s t  
I r o n P i p e Co., 
690 
So. 2d 341, 
344 
( A l a . 1997). 
2 
1100192 
In 
December 2004, H a m i l t o n , p r e g n a n t 
w i t h her 
second 
c h i l d , 
sought 
p r e n a t a l 
c a r e 
from 
IMG, 
which 
had 
p r o v i d e d 
H a m i l t o n w i t h p r e n a t a l c a r e d u r i n g her 
f i r s t pregnancy. 
On 
Monday, 
J a n u a r y 
10, 
2005, 
H a m i l t o n 
c o n t a c t e d 
IMG; 
she 
e x p l a i n e d t h a t she and her s e v e n - y e a r - o l d son had a r a s h t h a t 
she b e l i e v e d might be 
" f i f t h d i s e a s e , " an i n f e c t i o n caused by 
human p a r v o v i r u s B19. 
The 
n e x t 
day, 
J a n u a r y 
11, 
2005, 
H a m i l t o n had b l o o d drawn a t IMG and was t o l d t h a t she would be 
n o t i f i e d o f the r e s u l t s . 
On F r i d a y , J a n u a r y 14, 2005, an 
IMG 
employee t o l d H a m i l t o n over the t e l e p h o n e t h a t H a m i l t o n 
"had 
been exposed 
t o 
f i f t h 
d i s e a s e and had the p a r v o v i r u s " and 
t h a t , 
c o n s e q u e n t l y , she needed t o i m m e d i a t e l y s c h e d u l e 
an 
u l t r a s o u n d , t o be f o l l o w e d by an u l t r a s o u n d e v e r y 2 weeks f o r 
the n e x t 10 weeks. 
H a m i l t o n u n d e r s t o o d t h i s every-two-weeks 
u l t r a s o u n d s c h e d u l e t o have been o r d e r e d by Dr. 
I s b e l l ; Dr. 
I s b e l l c o n f i r m e d t h i s i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n . 
On Monday, J a n u a r y 17, 2005, H a m i l t o n went t o IMG f o r the 
f i r s t s c h e d u l e d u l t r a s o u n d as w e l l as a c o n s u l t a t i o n r e g a r d i n g 
t r e a t m e n t f o r f i f t h d i s e a s e . 
However, the d o c t o r w i t h whom 
H a m i l t o n was s c h e d u l e d t o meet was u n a v a i l a b l e ; H a m i l t o n 
was 
a l s o u n a b l e t o undergo the s c h e d u l e d u l t r a s o u n d because the 
t e c h n i c i a n was l e a v i n g e a r l y . 
H a m i l t o n ' s r e q u e s t t h a t she be 
3 
1100192 
s e n t t o t h e a d j o i n i n g h o s p i t a l f o r 
an u l t r a s o u n d 
was d e n i e d by 
an IMG employee; i n s t e a d , she was t o l d t o w a i t f o r h e r n e x t 
appointment two weeks 
l a t e r . 
H a m i l t o n 
r e t u r n e d t o IMG two weeks 
l a t e r , 
on Monday, 
J a n u a r y 31, 2005; d u r i n g the appointment, t h e d o c t o r she met 
w i t h , Dr. C o u l t e r , 
l i s t e n e d t o the unborn c h i l d ' s h e a r t b e a t 
and t o l d H a m i l t o n t h a t an u l t r a s o u n d 
was u n n e c e s s a r y . 
He a l s o 
e x p l a i n e d t o H a m i l t o n t h e p o t e n t i a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s o f 
f i f t h 
d i s e a s e and t h e p r o c e d u r e 
f o r p o t e n t i a l 
t r e a t m e n t o f h e r 
unborn c h i l d , i f n e c e s s a r y . 
On F e b r u a r y 18, 2005, H a m i l t o n r e t u r n e d t o IMG f o r 
her 
n e x t s c h e d u l e d a p p o i n t m e n t ; she a g a i n r e q u e s t e d an 
u l t r a s o u n d , 
but 
t h e d o c t o r 
she met 
w i t h , 
Dr. 
S c o t t , 
s a i d 
t h a t 
an 
u l t r a s o u n d was u n n e c e s s a r y . 
On F e b r u a r y 25, 2005, H a m i l t o n r e t u r n e d t o IMG f o r 
her 
n e x t 
s c h e d u l e d 
appointment, 
a t w h i c h 
an 
u l t r a s o u n d was 
performed. 
D u r i n g t h e u l t r a s o u n d , IMG's t e c h n i c i a n 
n o t i c e d 
t h a t H a m i l t o n ' s unborn son was n o t as l a r g e as t h e t e c h n i c i a n 
thought he s h o u l d be a t t h a t s t a g e o f t h e pregnancy and t h a t 
t h e r e was "a l i t t l e 
f o l d a t t h e back o f h i s 
neck which w o r r i e d 
[ t h e 
t e c h n i c i a n ] a l i t t l e b i t 
because i t 
might be a s i g n o f 
anemia." 
The t e c h n i c i a n 
t o l d 
H a m i l t o n "not t o be 
alarmed 
4 
1100192 
because [ s h e ] would p r o b a b l y 
be r e f e r r e d t o a p e r i n a t o l o g i s t 
f o r 
a 
second 
o p i n i o n " 
and 
t h a t 
t r e a t m e n t , 
i f 
any 
was 
n e c e s s a r y , 
would be a v a i l a b l e a t " K i r k l i n 
C l i n i c . " 
F o l l o w i n g the u l t r a s o u n d , 
H a m i l t o n met 
w i t h Dr. 
S c o t t , 
who 
l o o k e d 
a t 
s t i l l 
photographs from the 
u l t r a s o u n d . 
Dr. 
S c o t t t o l d her t h a t a " n u c h a l 
f o l d [ w a s ] b e g i n n i n g 
t o form" 
and 
t h a t the n u c h a l 
f o l d "was 
one 
of the s i g n s of becoming 
s e v e r e l y anemic and h a v i n g h y d r o p s , " w h i c h , he s a i d , "can 
l e a d 
t o 
c o n g e s t i v e 
h e a r t 
f a i l u r e . " 
However, 
Dr. 
S c o t t 
t o l d 
H a m i l t o n t h a t hydrops "can r e v e r s e 
i t s e l f " and t h a t H a m i l t o n 
s h o u l d 
w a i t 
two 
weeks 
and 
r e t u r n 
t o 
IMG 
f o r 
a n o t h e r 
u l t r a s o u n d . 
H a m i l t o n r e q u e s t e d t h a t Dr. S c o t t r e f e r her t o "a 
p e r i n a t o l o g i s t a t K i r k l i n C l i n i c , " but Dr. S c o t t t o l d her t h a t 
IMG 
c o u l d "handle i t " 
a t i t s o f f i c e . 
I n s t e a d , Dr. S c o t t 
t o l d 
H a m i l t o n t o come back i n two weeks f o r a n o t h e r u l t r a s o u n d , 
and 
he p r o m i s e d t o 
r e f e r H a m i l t o n t o a p e r i n a t o l o g i s t 
a t 
t h a t 
p o i n t , i f 
n e c e s s a r y . 
E l e v e n days l a t e r , on March 8, 2005, H a m i l t o n v i s i t e d 
IMG 
w i t h o u t 
a s c h e d u l e d appointment because she was 
f e e l i n g 
i l l . 
In her d e p o s i t i o n , H a m i l t o n d e s c r i b e d how, 
a f t e r she 
t e s t e d 
p o s i t i v e 
f o r the 
f l u , Dr. 
S c o t t 
" p r e s c r i b e d E x t r a 
S t r e n g t h 
T y l e n o l f o r body aches, p a i n , and f e v e r , because he s a i d w i t h 
5 
1100192 
t h a t p a r t i c u l a r 
s i t u a t i o n , 
t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g you can do, you 
j u s t have t o wear i t 
o u t . " H a m i l t o n summarized h e r symptoms 
as an "acute 
i l l n e s s . " 
On March 10, 2005, H a m i l t o n 
r e t u r n e d t o IMG; as she 
e x p l a i n e d i n 
her d e p o s i t i o n , she was " f e e l i n g r e a l l y bad" and 
"seemed t o 
be g e t t i n g worse." 
She had a l s o n o t i c e d " d e c r e a s e d 
movement" o f h e r unborn c h i l d . 
An u l t r a s o u n d p e r f o r m e d by IMG 
d e t e r m i n e d t h a t H a m i l t o n ' s unborn son had d i e d , p r o b a b l y i n 
the p r e v i o u s 24 o r 48 h o u r s ; l a b o r was i n d u c e d , and t h e c h i l d 
was s t i l l b o r n on March 11, 2005. Dr. I s b e l l , Dr. C o u l t e r , and 
Dr. S c o t t agree 
t h a t H a m i l t o n ' s unborn son had n o t r e a c h e d 
v i a b i l i t y , 
which i s t o say t h a t , i f 
h e r son had been born 
a l i v e on t h a t d a t e , he was u n l i k e l y t o have s u r v i v e d 
o u t s i d e 
the womb. 
B. 
H a m i l t o n ' s 
l i t i g a t i o n 
On A p r i l 28, 2006, H a m i l t o n 
f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n the 
t r i a l c o u r t , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s had caused t h e death 
of h e r unborn son "and t h a t t h e d e a t h o f h e r unborn son was 
w r o n g f u l w i t h i n the 
meaning o f t h e 
Alabama W r o n g f u l Death 
A c t , 
A l a . Code § 6-5-410 
(1975)."
2 
H a m i l t o n 
l a t e r amended h e r 
2 I n h e r c o m p l a i n t , H a m i l t o n s t a t e d t h a t she was b r i n g i n g 
" t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o [ t h e 
W r o n g f u l Death A c t ] 
as w e l l as 
6 
1100192 
c o m p l a i n t t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e 
d e f e n d a n t s ' n e g l i g e n c e had caused 
her t o s u f f e r "mental a n g u i s h and e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s . " 
A f t e r 
c o m p l e t i n g 
d i s c o v e r y , t h e d e f e n d a n t s 
f i l e d 
a 
summary-judgment motion on June 7, 2009, a r g u i n g t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n 
G e n t r y v. G i l m o r e , 613 So. 2d 1241 ( A l a . 
1993), and L o l l a r v. T a n k e r s l e y , 613 So. 2d 1249 ( A l a . 1993), 
d i d n o t 
p e r m i t a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h a c t i o n where a p r e v i a b l e c h i l d 
d i e d b e f o r e b i r t h : "The Supreme C o u r t o f 
Alabama has h e l d t h a t 
a 
p l a i n t i f f 
cannot 
m a i n t a i n a w r o n g f u l d e a t h 
a c t i o n f o r 
a 
f e t u s n o t v i a b l e t o l i v e o u t s i d e o f t h e 
womb 
As such, 
summary judgment must be g r a n t e d on b e h a l f o f t h e Defendants 
i n r e g a r d t o t h e w r o n g f u l d e a t h 
c l a i m o f t h e f e t u s . " 
The 
d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argued t h a t H a m i l t o n c o u l d n o t 
r e c o v e r damages 
f o r h e r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s because, 
t h e y s a i d , she had 
n o t 
shown e i t h e r t h a t she had s u s t a i n e d p h y s i c a l 
i n j u r y o r t h a t 
she was p l a c e d a t r i s k o f immediate p h y s i c a l harm by t h e 
the p r o v i s i o n s t h e 
M e d i c a l L i a b i l i t y A c t 
o f 1987, 
as amended, 
A l a . Code § 6-5-540 e t seq. (1975)." 
The d e f e n d a n t s 
a l s o 
c i t e d t h e 
Alabama M e d i c a l L i a b i l i t y A c t ("the AMLA") i n t h e i r 
answer and i n t h e i r motions f o r a summary judgment. 
H a m i l t o n 
does not d i s p u t e t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e 
AMLA t o t h i s case; 
i n d e e d , i n 
h e r r e p l y b r i e f , H a m i l t o n acknowledged t h a t " c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s , 
whether i n 
c o n t r a c t o r t o r t , a r e 
now subsumed i n t o one a c t i o n by t h e 
Alabama M e d i c a l 
L i a b i l i t y 
A c t . " 
H a m i l t o n ' s r e p l y b r i e f , a t 6. 
7 
1100192 
d e f e n d a n t s , as 
r e q u i r e d by 
t h i s 
C o u r t i n AALAR, L t d . v.  
F r a n c i s , 716 So. 2d 1141 ( A l a . 1998). 
The d e f e n d a n t s s t a t e d 
t h a t H a m i l t o n " f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t she was i n t h e 'zone 
of danger' as r e q u i r e d by Alabama l a w . "
3 
Dr. I s b e l l and Dr. C o u l t e r s e p a r a t e l y moved f o r 
a summary 
judgment; Dr. I s b e l l argued t h a t H a m i l t o n had p r e s e n t e d no 
argument or e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t he had b r e a c h e d the s t a n d a r d 
of c a r e i n h i s t r e a t m e n t of h e r . 
H a m i l t o n responded t o the summary-judgment motions on 
October 1, 2010. She conceded t h a t Dr. I s b e l l was e n t i t l e d t o 
a summary judgment, s t a t i n g 
t h a t she "hereby agrees t h a t t h e 
'Motion f o r Summary Judgment on B e h a l f o f Dr. John 
B l a k e l y 
I s b e l l ' i s 
due t o be g r a n t e d and concedes t h a t t h e r e i s 
no s e t 
of f a c t s t h a t , i f p r o v e d a g a i n s t Dr. I s b e l l , would e n t i t l e h e r 
t o r e c o v e r . " 
However, she argued t h a t t h e summary-judgment 
motions 
f i l e d 
by t h e o t h e r 
d e f e n d a n t s 
s h o u l d 
be 
d e n i e d . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , she argued t h a t i n G e n t r y t h i s C o u r t had "based 
3The d e f e n d a n t s 
a l s o argued i n t h e i r 
summary-judgment 
m o t i o n t h a t H a m i l t o n had f a i l e d t o prove t h a t t h e d e a t h of h e r 
son was caused by t h e d e f e n d a n t s . 
H a m i l t o n responded t o t h a t 
argument, and t h e d e f e n d a n t s r a i s e d i t a g a i n i n t h e i r 
r e p l y 
b r i e f t o t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
However, the t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
made no f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
r e g a r d i n g c a u s a t i o n ; 
t h e r e f o r e , 
the 
i s s u e of c a u s a t i o n i s not b e f o r e 
t h i s C o u r t . 
For t h a t 
r e a s o n , we do not d i s c u s s c a u s a t i o n 
i s s u e s i n t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
8 
1100192 
[ i t s d e c i s i o n t o deny r e c o v e r y 
f o r the d e a t h of a p r e v i a b l e 
unborn c h i l d ] on t h e f a c t t h a t 'there i s no c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e 
d i r e c t i o n . ' 
613 So. 2d a t 1244." 
H a m i l t o n argued 
t h a t 
subsequent l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n s had p r o v i d e d t h e c o u r t s 
w i t h 
t h a t " l e g i s l a t i v e d i r e c t i o n . " 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , H a m i l t o n argued 
t h a t 
s e v e r a l 
s t a t u t e s on a b o r t i o n e n a c t e d s i n c e G e n t r y was 
d e c i d e d " p r o v i d e d 
c l e a r d i r e c t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the term 
'minor c h i l d ' can i n c l u d e n o n v i a b l e 
f e t u s e s . " 
On t h e i s s u e o f 
damages f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , H a m i l t o n argued t h a t t h e l o s s 
of her unborn c h i l d was a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t h a t e n t i t l e d h e r t o 
r e c o v e r damages f o r 
h e r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s ; a l t e r n a t i v e l y , 
she 
argued t h a t she was e n t i t l e d t o damages f o r 
e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s 
under T a y l o r v. B a p t i s t M e d i c a l C e n t e r , I n c . , 400 So. 2d 369 
(1981), i n w h i c h 
t h i s C o u r t p e r m i t t e d 
a mother t o 
r e c o v e r 
damages f o r e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s f o l l o w i n g t h e d e a t h of h e r 
c h i l d d u r i n g 
b i r t h . 
On October 5, 2010, t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a r e p l y b r i e f i n 
s u p p o r t of t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n s . 
I n t h e i r 
r e p l y 
b r i e f , t h e y argued t h a t "the law i n Alabama remains t h a t a 
p l a i n t i f f cannot m a i n t a i n a w r o n g f u l d e a t h a c t i o n f o r a non-
v i a b l e 
f e t u s and t h e Alabama l e g i s l a t u r e has not 
d e c l a r e d 
o t h e r w i s e . " 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
t h e d e f e n d a n t s argued 
t h a t the 
9 
1100192 
l e g i s l a t u r e ' s subsequent, a b o r t i o n - r e l a t e d l e g i s l a t i o n d i d not 
j u s t i f y 
o v e r r u l i n g G e n t r y and 
L o l l a r . 
The 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a l s o 
argued t h a t , i n s e e k i n g damages f o r her e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , 
H a m i l t o n 
d i d "not 
s t a t e a c l a i m upon which 
r e l i e f 
can 
be 
g r a n t e d " because, t h e y s a i d , she " m i s i n t e r p r e t s the h o l d i n g i n 
T a y l o r " and her " i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m i s i n s u f f i c i e n t as a m a t t e r 
of law." 
On 
October 
15, 
2010, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
g r a n t e d 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n s , 
c o n c l u d i n g : 
" [ H a m i l t o n ] has conceded t h a t the d e f e n d a n t , Dr. 
John B l a k e l y 
I s b e l l , 
i s due t o be g r a n t e d summary 
judgment. 
" [ H a m i l t o n ' s ] c l a i m s are f o r w r o n g f u l d e a t h and 
f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s s u f f e r e d by 
[Hamilton] as a 
r e s u l t o f b e i n g caused t o d e l i v e r a s t i l l b o r n 
c h i l d . 
"The 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a s s e r t , and the c o u r t 
a g r e e s , 
t h a t 
[Hamilton] 
cannot 
m a i n t a i n a w r o n g f u l 
death 
a c t i o n f o r a f e t u s not v i a b l e t o l i v e o u t s i d e 
the 
womb. 
G e n t r y 
v. 
G i l m o r e , 
613 
So. 
2d 
1241 
( A l a . 
1993); 
L o l l a r v. T a n k e r s l e y , 613 So. 2d 1249 
( A l a . 
1993) . 
The 
c o u r t 
c o n s i d e r s 
the G e n t r y and 
L o l l a r 
cases 
c o n t r o l l i n g on 
t h i s 
i s s u e . 
The 
c o u r t 
i s 
u n c o n v i n c e d t h a t s t a t u t e s p a s s e d by the l e g i s l a t u r e 
subsequent 
t o t h o s e 
d e c i s i o n s have 
a l t e r e d 
t h e i r 
a p p l i c a t i o n . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
i t i s adjudged 
t h a t the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment i s due t o be 
g r a n t e d as t o the w r o n g f u l d e a t h 
c l a i m . 
"The 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a l s o 
a s s e r t 
t h a t 
[Hamilton] 
cannot m a i n t a i n a c l a i m f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and 
m e n t a l 
a n g u i s h because she 
has 
f a i l e d 
t o produce 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t she s u s t a i n e d a p h y s i c a l 
10 
1100192 
i n j u r y or was 
p l a c e d 
i n immediate r i s k of p h y s i c a l 
harm 
by 
the 
conduct 
of 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
[Hamilton] 
i n s i s t s t h a t the Alabama Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n 
T a y l o r v. B a p t i s t M e d i c a l 
C e n t e r , I n c . , 
400 
So. 
2d 
369 
( A l a . 1981), i s c o n t r o l l i n g on 
t h i s i s s u e . 
In 
T a y l o r , the p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n a g a i n s t her p h y s i c i a n 
was 
based 
on 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
t h a t 
the 
p h y s i c i a n 
n e g l i g e n t l y 
f a i l e d t o a t t e n d 
d u r i n g 
her 
l a b o r 
and 
her d e l i v e r y of a c h i l d who 
e i t h e r was 
s t i l l b o r n 
or 
d i e d w i t h i n moments of 
b i r t h . 
"The 
Supreme 
C o u r t 
i n 
T a y l o r 
abandoned 
the 
' p h y s i c a l 
i m p a c t ' 
t e s t 
t h a t 
had 
been 
the 
law 
up 
u n t i l t h a t p o i n t and e x t e n d e d the r i g h t t o 
r e c o v e r 
t o 
t h o s e 
who 
s u f f e r e d 
e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s w i t h o u t 
a l s o s u f f e r i n g a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p h y s i c a l i n j u r y . 
In 
a 
l a t e r 
case, 
the 
Supreme C o u r t 
d i s c u s s e d 
t h r e e 
t e s t s 
f o r 
e v a l u a t i n g 
c l a i m s 
a l l e g i n g 
n e g l i g e n t 
i n f l i c t i o n of e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t h a t have d e v e l o p e d 
i n 
the common law: 
the 
p h y s i c a l impact 
t e s t ; 
the 
zone 
of 
danger 
t e s t ; 
and 
the 
r e l a t i v e 
b y s t a n d e r 
t e s t . 
I t t h e n d e c l a r e d the c u r r e n t s t a t e of Alabama 
law t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the 'zone of danger' t e s t , 
w h i c h l i m i t s r e c o v e r y 
f o r e m o t i o n a l i n j u r y t o t h o s e 
p l a i n t i f f s who 
s u s t a i n a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y as a r e s u l t 
of 
a 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
n e g l i g e n t 
conduct, 
or 
who 
are 
p l a c e d 
i n immediate 
r i s k of p h y s i c a l harm by 
t h a t 
conduct. 
AALAR, L t d . , I n c . v. F r a n c i s , 716 
So. 
2d 
1141 
( A l a . 1998). 
In the AALAR d e c i s i o n , the C o u r t 
found 
the 
d e c i s i o n 
i n 
the 
T a y l o r 
case 
t o 
be 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t t e s t because i t was 
r e a s o n a b l y 
f o r e s e e a b l e 
t h a t 
the 
p l a i n t i f f would be 
p l a c e d 
a t 
r i s k of p h y s i c a l i n j u r y by the p h y s i c i a n ' s 
f a i l u r e 
t o a t t e n d her d e l i v e r y . 
"Given t h a t 
the 
'zone of danger' t e s t i s 
the 
c u r r e n t 
s t a t e 
of 
the 
law 
i n Alabama, 
t h i s 
c o u r t 
c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t 
i t 
i s 
the 
t e s t 
a p p l i c a b l e 
t o 
[ H a m i l t o n ' s ] c l a i m f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and m e n t a l 
a n g u i s h . 
To 
s u p p o r t t h a t 
c l a i m , 
[Hamilton] must 
e s t a b l i s h 
by 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
i t 
was 
r e a s o n a b l y f o r e s e e a b l e 
t h a t she would be p l a c e d 
a t 
r i s k of p h y s i c a l i n j u r y by the d e f e n d a n t s ' conduct. 
11 
1100192 
The m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d t o the c o u r t i n s u p p o r t o f 
and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o d e f e n d a n t s ' motions f o r summary 
judgment are d e v o i d of any such e v i d e n c e , and 
the 
c o u r t f i n d s the e v i d e n c e 
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e 
an 
i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t as t o whether the d e f e n d a n t s ' 
a l l e g e d b r e a c h of c a r e p l a c e d [Hamilton] w i t h i n the 
'zone of 
danger.' 
" [ H a m i l t o n ] argues t h a t the d e a t h of the f e t u s 
c o n s t i t u t e d 
' p h y s i c a l i n j u r y ' t o her body, t h e r e b y 
e n t i t l i n g her t o c l a i m e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and mental 
a n g u i s h . 
She s u g g e s t s t h a t the f e t u s was as much a 
p a r t o f h e r body as a l u n g , a k i d n e y , a s p l e e n , an 
arm, 
a l e g or any o t h e r organ. 
Our Supreme C o u r t , 
however, has quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l h o l d i n g s i n cases 
from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t the f e t u s or embryo i s 
not a p a r t of the mother, but r a t h e r has a s e p a r a t e 
e x i s t e n c e w i t h i n the body of the mother. 
Wolfe 
v.  
I s b e l l , 
291 A l a . 327, 
280 So. 2d 768 
(1973). 
The 
d e a t h of a f e t u s does n o t , w i t h o u t more, c o n s t i t u t e 
a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o the body of the mother, and the 
c o u r t 
f i n d s 
as 
a m a t t e r 
of 
law 
t h a t 
[Hamilton] 
cannot 
r e c o v e r 
f o r e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s 
or 
m e n t a l 
a n g u i s h based on such 
c l a i m . 
" I n c o n c l u s i o n , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t [Hamilton] 
cannot m a i n t a i n a w r o n g f u l d e a t h c l a i m f o r the d e a t h 
of 
a 
n o n - v i a b l e 
f e t u s ; 
she 
cannot 
m a i n t a i n 
an 
i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s because the 
e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t she was 
w i t h i n 
the 
'zone 
of 
danger,' 
and 
she 
cannot 
c l a i m 
a 
p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o her body as a r e s u l t of the d e a t h 
of the f e t u s . 
Based on t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s , the c o u r t 
f i n d s 
i t u n n e c e s s a r y 
t o 
address 
the 
i s s u e 
o f 
c a u s a t i o n . 
" A c c o r d i n g l y , 
i t 
i s 
adjudged 
t h a t 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
motion 
f o r summary judgment 
f o r a l l 
d e f e n d a n t s on a l l 
c l a i m s i s g r a n t e d , and 
[Hamilton] 
s h a l l have no r e c o v e r y a g a i n s t the d e f e n d a n t s . " 
12 
1100192 
H a m i l t o n 
a p p e a l e d 
the 
summary judgment 
i n 
f a v o r 
o f 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s o t h e r t h a n Dr. 
I s b e l l . 
A f t e r 
b r i e f i n g i n t h i s 
case was 
completed, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n Mack v. Carmack, 79 So. 3d 597 ( A l a . 
2011). 
In Mack, t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e f o r r e c o v e r y o f damages f o r the a c c i d e n t a l 
d e a t h of a p r e v i a b l e unborn 
c h i l d , 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
o v e r r u l i n g 
G e n t r y and L o l l a r ; i n t h o s e c a s e s , which the 
t r i a l c o u r t i n 
t h i s case 
r e l i e d upon 
(see the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r , q u o t e d 
s u p r a ) , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
had 
h e l d 
t h a t 
damages 
c o u l d not 
be 
r e c o v e r e d f o r the w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f a c h i l d who 
d i e d w i t h o u t 
b e i n g born a l i v e o r r e a c h i n g v i a b i l i t y . 
In Mack, we 
s t a t e d : 
"In 
sum, i t i s an u n f a i r and a r b i t r a r y 
endeavor 
to draw a l i n e t h a t a l l o w s r e c o v e r y on b e h a l f o f a 
f e t u s 
i n j u r e d 
b e f o r e 
v i a b i l i t y 
t h a t 
d i e s 
a f t e r 
a c h i e v i n g 
v i a b i l i t y but t h a t p r e v e n t s r e c o v e r y on 
b e h a l f o f a f e t u s i n j u r e d t h a t , as a r e s u l t of t h o s e 
i n j u r i e s , does not s u r v i v e t o v i a b i l i t y . 
Moreover, 
i t i s an endeavor 
t h a t u n f a i r l y d i s t r a c t s from the 
w e l l 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
fundamental 
concerns 
o f 
t h i s 
S t a t e ' s w r o n g f u l - d e a t h j u r i s p r u d e n c e , i . e . , whether 
t h e r e e x i s t s a d u t y o f c a r e and the punishment o f 
the wrongdoer who 
b r e a c h e s 
t h a t d u t y . 
We 
cannot 
c o n c l u d e t h a t 
' l o g i c , f a i r n e s s , and j u s t i c e ' compel 
t h e 
d r a w i n g 
of 
such 
a 
l i n e ; 
i n s t e a d , 
' l o g i c , 
f a i r n e s s , and j u s t i c e ' compel the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the 
W r o n g f u l Death A c t t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s where p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s have caused d e a t h t o a f e t u s b e f o r e the 
f e t u s has a c h i e v e d the a b i l i t y t o l i v e o u t s i d e the 
womb. 
13 
1100192 
" I n a c c o r d then w i t h the numerous c o n s i d e r a t i o n s 
d i s c u s s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n , and on the b a s i s 
of the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s amendment of Alabama's h o m i c i d e 
s t a t u t e t o i n c l u d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r 'an unborn 
c h i l d 
i n u t e r o a t any s t a g e of development, r e g a r d l e s s 
of 
v i a b i l i t y , ' 
§ 1 3 A - 6 - 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 
[ A l a . Code 1975,] 
we 
o v e r r u l e 
L o l l a r 
and 
G e n t r y , 
and 
we 
h o l d 
t h a t 
the 
W r o n g f u l Death A c t p e r m i t s 
an a c t i o n f o r the d e a t h 
of 
a p r e v i a b l e 
f e t u s . 
We 
t h e r e f o r e 
r e v e r s e 
the 
summary judgment i n f a v o r of Carmack and remand the 
a c t i o n f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 
t h i s 
o p i n i o n . " 
79 So. 3d a t 611-12.
4 
H a m i l t o n s u b m i t t e d 
c o p i e s 
of the Mack d e c i s i o n t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t as s u p p l e m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y i n her a p p e a l , accompanied by 
a l e t t e r a s k i n g the c l e r k of t h i s C o u r t t o d i s t r i b u t e t h o s e 
c o p i e s t o the members of the C o u r t . 
The d e f e n d a n t s 
f i l e d a 
m o t i o n t o s t r i k e H a m i l t o n ' s s u p p l e m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y o r , i n the 
a l t e r n a t i v e , t o g r a n t the d e f e n d a n t s p e r m i s s i o n t o r e s p o n d t o 
t h a t s u p p l e m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y . 
T h i s C o u r t d e n i e d the motion t o 
^ A d d i t i o n a l l y , we note t h a t t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Mack 
i s 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the D e c l a r a t i o n of R i g h t s 
i n the Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t " a l l men 
are e q u a l l y f r e e 
and 
i n d e p e n d e n t ; 
t h a t 
t h e y 
are endowed by 
t h e i r 
C r e a t o r 
w i t h 
c e r t a i n i n a l i e n a b l e r i g h t s ; t h a t among t h e s e are l i f e , 
l i b e r t y 
and 
the 
p u r s u i t 
of 
h a p p i n e s s . " 
A l a . 
C o n s t . 
1901, 
§ 
1 
(emphasis added). 
These words, borrowed from the D e c l a r a t i o n 
of Independence (which s t a t e s t h a t "[w]e h o l d t h e s e t r u t h s t o 
be s e l f - e v i d e n t , t h a t a l l 
men 
are c r e a t e d e q u a l , t h a t t h e y are 
endowed by t h e i r C r e a t o r w i t h c e r t a i n u n a l i e n a b l e R i g h t s , t h a t 
among t h e s e are L i f e , L i b e r t y and the p u r s u i t of H a p p i n e s s " ) , 
a f f i r m t h a t each p e r s o n has a God-given r i g h t t o 
l i f e . 
14 
1100192 
s t r i k e , g r a n t e d the d e f e n d a n t s p e r m i s s i o n t o respond t o the 
s u p p l e m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y , and p e r m i t t e d H a m i l t o n t o r e p l y t o the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' r e s p o n s e . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"'[O]n 
a p p e a l 
a summary judgment 
c a r r i e s 
no 
p r e s u m p t i o n 
of c o r r e c t n e s s , ' Hornsby v. S e s s i o n s , 
703 So. 2d 932, 938 ( A l a . 1997). 
'"In r e v i e w i n g the 
d i s p o s i t i o n 
of a m o t i o n 
f o r summary judgment, 
we 
u t i l i z e the same s t a n d a r d as t h a t o f the t r i a l c o u r t 
i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the c o u r t 
made out 
a genuine 
i s s u e 
of 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t " 
and 
whether t h e movant was 
e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a 
m a t t e r o f law.' 
Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l Motors Corp., 
769 
So. 2d 903, 906 
( A l a . 1999) 
( q u o t i n g Bussey v. John  
Deere Co., 
531 So. 2d 860, 862 
( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . 
'Our 
r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o the c a v e a t t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
must 
r e v i e w 
the 
r e c o r d 
i n 
a 
l i g h t 
most 
f a v o r a b l e 
t o the nonmovant and must 
r e s o l v e a l l 
r e a s o n a b l e doubts a g a i n s t the movant.' 
Hobson v.  
American 
C a s t I r o n P i p e Co., 
690 
So. 
2d 341, 
344 
( A l a . 
1997)." 
Harper v. C o a t s , 988 So. 2d 501, 503 
( A l a . 2008). 
D i s c u s s i o n 
A. 
Whether Mack s h o u l d a p p l y i n t h i s case 
The d e f e n d a n t s p r e s e n t s e v e r a l arguments c o n t e n d i n g t h a t 
t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d not a p p l y our r e c e n t h o l d i n g i n Mack i n t h i s 
case, which 
was 
p e n d i n g 
on 
a p p e a l when Mack was 
d e c i d e d . 
However, t h e s e arguments are i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Alabama law: 
"The 
g e n e r a l r u l e 
i s t h a t a case p e n d i n g 
on 
 
a p p e a l 
w i l l 
be 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
any 
change 
i n 
the 
 
s u b s t a n t i v e law. 
The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t 
15 
1100192 
has 
s t a t e d , i n r e g a r d t o f e d e r a l 
c o u r t s t h a t 
are 
a p p l y i n g 
s t a t e law: 
'[T]he 
dominant 
p r i n c i p l e 
i s 
t h a t n i s i p r i u s and a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l s a l i k e s h o u l d 
conform t h e i r o r d e r s t o the s t a t e law as of the time 
of the e n t r y . 
I n t e r v e n i n g and c o n f l i c t i n g d e c i s i o n s  
w i l l thus cause the r e v e r s a l of judgments which were  
c o r r e c t when e n t e r e d . ' 
Vandenbark v. O w e n s - I l l i n o i s  
G l a s s Co., 
311 U.S. 
538, 543, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 
L.Ed. 
327 
(1941). 
See 
a l s o U n i t e d 
S t a t e s v. 
Schooner 
 
Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 5 U.S. 
103, 2 L.Ed. 
49 
(1801). 
Thus, c o u r t s are r e q u i r e d t o a p p l y i n a p a r t i c u l a r 
case the law as i t e x i s t s a t the time i t e n t e r s i t s 
f i n a l judgment: 
" ' [ I ] t has l o n g been h e l d t h a t i f t h e r e i s 
a 
change 
i n 
e i t h e r 
the 
s t a t u t o r y 
or 
d e c i s i o n a l 
law 
b e f o r e 
f i n a l 
judgment i s 
e n t e r e d , the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must " d i s p o s e 
of 
[the] case a c c o r d i n g t o the law as i t 
e x i s t s a t the time of f i n a l judgment, 
and 
not 
as 
i t e x i s t e d a t 
the 
time 
of 
the 
a p p e a l . " T h i s r u l e i s u s u a l l y r e g a r d e d 
as 
b e i n g founded upon the c o n c e p t u a l 
i n a b i l i t y 
of a c o u r t t o e n f o r c e 
t h a t w h i c h 
i s 
no 
l o n g e r the 
law, even though i t may 
have 
been the law a t the time of 
t r i a l , 
or a t 
the 
time 
of 
the 
p r i o r 
a p p e l l a t e 
p r o c e e d i n g s . ' 
"Note, 
P r o s p e c t i v e 
O v e r r u l i n g 
and 
R e t r o a c t i v e 
 
A p p l i c a t i o n i n the F e d e r a l C o u r t s , 71 Y a l e L . J . 907, 
912 
(1962) 
( q u o t i n g Montague v. M a r y l a n d , 
54 
Md. 
481, 483 
( 1 8 8 0 ) ) . " 
Alabama S t a t e Docks T e r m i n a l Ry. v. L y l e s , 797 So. 2d 432, 
438 
( A l a . 
2001) 
(emphasis 
added). 
Mack 
i s now 
c o n t r o l l i n g 
p r e c e d e n t on the i s s u e whether "the W r o n g f u l Death A c t p e r m i t s 
an a c t i o n f o r the d e a t h of a p r e v i a b l e f e t u s , " 
Mack, 79 
So. 
3d a t 611, 
and 
the C o u r t 
i n t h a t case h e l d such an a c t i o n 
16 
1100192 
p e r m i s s i b l e . 
T h e r e f o r e , we 
w i l l a p p l y Mack i n d e c i d i n g t h i s 
a p p e a l . 
B. 
Whether H a m i l t o n Can 
Recover 
Damages f o r the 
A l l e g e d  
W r o n g f u l Death of Her S t i l l b o r n 
Son 
The 
f i r s t 
s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e we must c o n s i d e r i s whether 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t H a m i l t o n 
c o u l d n o t 
m a i n t a i n a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h a c t i o n " f o r the d e a t h of [her] non-
v i a b l e f e t u s . " 
As s e t f o r t h i n Mack and as a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s 
case, Alabama's w r o n g f u l - d e a t h s t a t u t e a l l o w s an a c t i o n t o be 
b r o u g h t f o r the w r o n g f u l d e a t h of any unborn c h i l d , even when 
the 
c h i l d 
d i e s 
b e f o r e 
r e a c h i n g 
v i a b i l i t y . 
A p p l y i n g 
our 
h o l d i n g i n Mack, quoted s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e t h a t the summary 
judgment, i n s o f a r as i t h e l d t h a t damages f o r the w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h of a p r e v i a b l e unborn c h i l d were not r e c o v e r a b l e , must 
be 
r e v e r s e d and 
the case remanded f o r the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o 
r e c o n s i d e r the d e f e n d a n t s ' summary-judgment motions i n l i g h t 
of 
t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Mack; t h e t r i a l c o u r t may 
conduct 
such p r o c e e d i n g s as i t 
deems n e c e s s a r y i n r e c o n s i d e r i n g those 
m o t i o n s . 
C. 
Whether 
H a m i l t o n 
Can 
Recover 
Damages 
f o r 
E m o t i o n a l 
D i s t r e s s 
17 
1100192 
The 
second 
i s s u e 
r a i s e d i n t h i s a p p e a l i s whether the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
i n h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
H a m i l t o n 
" [ c o u l d 
not] 
m a i n t a i n an i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s because 
the e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t she was w i t h i n the 
'zone of danger,' 
and she cannot c l a i m a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o 
her body as a r e s u l t o f the d e a t h o f the f e t u s . " 
In t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n s , the d e f e n d a n t s 
argued 
t h a t H a m i l t o n c o u l d not r e c o v e r damages f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s 
because, t h e y s a i d , H a m i l t o n "was not p h y s i c a l l y i n j u r e d as a 
r e s u l t o f the d e f e n d a n t s ' a l l e g e d conduct" and H a m i l t o n 
"was 
never i n the 'zone of danger.'" 
In s u p p o r t of t h i s argument, 
the d e f e n d a n t s c i t e d AALAR, 716 So. 2d a t 1148, i n which 
t h i s 
C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t "has not r e c o g n i z e d e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s as 
a compensable i n j u r y o r harm i n n e g l i g e n c e a c t i o n s o u t s i d e the 
c o n t e x t of e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s r e s u l t i n g from a c t u a l p h y s i c a l 
i n j u r y , o r , i n the absence of p h y s i c a l i n j u r y , f e a r f o r one's 
own 
p h y s i c a l 
i n j u r y . " 
( C i t i n g 
Pearson, 
L i a b i l i t y 
t o 
B y s t a n d e r s 
f o r N e g l i g e n t l y 
I n f l i c t e d 
E m o t i o n a l Harm -- 
A 
 
Comment on the N a t u r e of A r b i t r a r y R u l e s , 34 U. F l a . L.Rev. 
477, 
487 
( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . 
The 
d e f e n d a n t s 
n o t e d 
t h a t , 
d u r i n g 
h e r 
18 
1100192 
d e p o s i t i o n , 
H a m i l t o n 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
she 
had 
not 
been 
"concerned f o r [her] 
l i f e . "
5 
In 
her 
response 
t o 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
summary-judgment 
m o t i o n s , H a m i l t o n s t a t e d t h a t she " [ d i d ] not d i s p u t e t h a t she 
never f e a r e d f o r her own 
l i f e and i s t h e r e f o r e not e n t i t l e d t o 
zone of danger damages." 
However, H a m i l t o n c l a i m e d t h a t she 
i s 
" e n t i t l e d t o mental a n g u i s h damages" under t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n i n T a y l o r v. B a p t i s t M e d i c a l C e n t e r , s u p r a . H a m i l t o n 
argued t h a t T a y l o r " c a r v e [ d ] out a s p e c i f i c e x c e p t i o n " t o the 
zone-of-danger 
t e s t f o r cases i n which a mother has 
s u f f e r e d 
the l o s s o f her unborn c h i l d . 
However, i n AALAR, t h i s C o u r t 
e x p l a i n e d t h a t the 
t e s t 
t h i s C o u r t had been a p p l y i n g w i t h 
r e g a r d t o c l a i m s f o r e m o t i o n a l - d i s t r e s s damages, i n c l u d i n g the 
t e s t 
a p p l i e d i n T a y l o r , was 
" c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the 
'zone o f 
danger' 
t e s t 
d i s c u s s e d 
i n 
[ C o n s o l i d a t e d R a i l 
Corp. 
v.] 
 
G o t t s h a l l , 
[512 U.S. 
532 
( 1 9 9 4 ) ] . " 
716 So. 2d a t 1147. 
In 
C o n s o l i d a t e d R a i l Corp. v. G o t t s h a l l , 512 U.S. 532 (1994), the 
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "the zone of danger 
t e s t l i m i t s r e c o v e r y f o r e m o t i o n a l i n j u r y t o those 
p l a i n t i f f s 
5 S p e c i f i c a l l y , d u r i n g her d e p o s i t i o n , H a m i l t o n was asked, 
" I mean, a t any time i n t h i s p r o c e s s , were you e v e r c o n c e r n e d 
f o r 
your 
l i f e ? " 
H a m i l t o n answered, " I was not c o n c e r n e d f o r 
my 
l i f e . " 
19 
1100192 
who 
s u s t a i n a p h y s i c a l impact as a r e s u l t of a d e f e n d a n t ' s 
n e g l i g e n t conduct, o r who 
are p l a c e d i n immediate 
r i s k 
o f 
p h y s i c a l 
harm 
by 
t h a t 
c o n d u c t . " 
512 
U.S. 
a t 
547-48. 
H a m i l t o n ' s 
a s s e r t i o n 
t h a t 
T a y l o r 
" c a r v e [ d ] out a 
s p e c i f i c 
e x c e p t i o n " t o the zone-of-danger t e s t i s e r r o n e o u s . 
The o n l y p h y s i c a l harm H a m i l t o n a l l e g e d i n her response 
t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' summary-judgment motions was the d e a t h of 
her unborn son. 
She argued t h a t her unborn son was a p a r t of 
her body; t h u s , she s a i d , h i s d e a t h was a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o 
her t h a t a l l o w s her t o r e c o v e r damages f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . 
We 
r e j e c t t h a t argument, however, because i t i s 
i n c o m p a t i b l e 
w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Wolfe v. I s b e l l , 291 A l a . 327, 
330-31, 
280 So. 2d 758, 768 
(1973), i n which we 
s a i d 
" t h a t 
from t h e moment o f c o n c e p t i o n , the f e t u s or embryo i s not a 
p a r t of the mother, b u t r a t h e r has a s e p a r a t e e x i s t e n c e w i t h i n 
the body o f the mother."
6 
Because H a m i l t o n conceded t h a t she was "not e n t i t l e d t o 
zone 
o f danger damages" and her argument s u g g e s t i n g t h a t 
T a y l o r 
c r e a t e d an e x c e p t i o n t o the zone-of-danger 
t e s t i s 
m i s p l a c e d , 
and 
because, 
i n 
response 
t o 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
6 I n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l , the d e f e n d a n t s c i t e Wolfe f o r 
t h i s same p r o p o s i t i o n . 
See d e f e n d a n t s ' b r i e f , a t 40 
20 
1100192 
summary-judgment m o t i o n s , she p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e showing 
t h a t she s u f f e r e d a p h y s i c a l 
i n j u r y as a r e s u l t o f 
t h e 
d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y 
e n t e r e d a summary judgment i n s o f a r as i t c o n c e r n s 
H a m i l t o n ' s 
c l a i m f o r damages f o r e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Based on our r e c e n t h o l d i n g i n 
Mack, we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
H a m i l t o n was e n t i t l e d t o 
pursue a c l a i m a g a i n s t the d e f e n d a n t s 
f o r 
t h e w r o n g f u l 
death o f h e r unborn son. 
Thus, as t o 
H a m i l t o n ' s w r o n g f u l - d e a t h c l a i m , we r e v e r s e t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s 
summary judgment i n f a v o r o f a l l 
t h e d e f e n d a n t s e x c e p t Dr. 
I s b e l l , as t o 
whom H a m i l t o n has 
n o t a p p e a l e d , and 
we remand 
the case f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . 
However, because H a m i l t o n f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t she 
was 
e n t i t l e d t o damages f o r 
e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s , we a f f i r m t h e 
summary judgment f o r t h e 
d e f e n d a n t s -- o t h e r than Dr. I s b e l l 
-- i n s o f a r as i t d e n i e d H a m i l t o n ' s c l a i m f o r such damages. 
APPLICATION OVERRULED; OPINION OF FEBRUARY 17, 
2012, 
WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN 
PART; REVERSED 
IN 
PART; AND REMANDED. 
Malone, C.J., and 
W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , Murdock, Shaw, 
Main, and 
Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
P a r k e r , J . , c o n c u r s 
s p e c i a l l y . 
21 
1100192 
PARKER, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) . 
Today, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e a f f i r m s t h a t t h e l i v e s o f unborn 
c h i l d r e n a r e p r o t e c t e d by Alabama's w r o n g f u l - d e a t h s t a t u t e , 
r e g a r d l e s s o f v i a b i l i t y . 
I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o e x p l a i n why 
the Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 
(1973), 
does n o t b a r t h e r e s u l t we 
r e a c h 
t o d a y and t o 
emphasize 
t h e 
d i m i n i s h i n g 
i n f l u e n c e 
o f Roe's 
v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d . 
Because Roe i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y beyond 
a b o r t i o n 
law, and because i t s v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d 
i s not 
p e r s u a s i v e , I c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t l e a s t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e 
law 
of 
w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h , 
Roe's 
v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d 
s h o u l d 
be 
u n i v e r s a l l y abandoned. 
I . 
The u n c e r t a i n s t a t u s o f t h e v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d i n t o r t and  
c r i m i n a l law s i n c e Roe. 
S i n c e 1973, 
when Roe was d e c i d e d , laws r e g a r d i n g p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r y , w r o n g f u l d e a t h , and f e t a l h o m i c i d e have i n c r e a s i n g l y 
abandoned t h e v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d 
e x p r e s s e d 
i n Roe. 
I n 
p r e n a t a l - i n j u r y law, " e v e r y j u r i s d i c t i o n p e r m i t s r e c o v e r y f o r 
p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s 
i f a 
c h i l d 
i s b o r n 
a l i v e . 
... 
T h i s 
g e n e r a l l y h o l d s 
t r u e r e g a r d l e s s whether t h e i n j u r y 
o c c u r r e d 
e i t h e r 
b e f o r e 
o r a f t e r t h e p o i n t o f v i a b i l i t y . 
... 
The 
m a j o r i t y o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s a l s o r e c o g n i z e a cause o f a c t i o n 
f o r 
22 
1100192 
the w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f 
a s t i l l b o r n , v i a b l e f e t u s . " 
Crosby v.  
G l a s s c o c k T r u c k i n g Co., 340 S.C. 626, 
634, 
532 S.E.2d 
856, 
860 (2000) ( T o a l , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) 
( c i t i n g 
F a r l e y v. S a r t i n , 195 
W.Va. 671, 
466 S.E.2d 522 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ) . 
S t a t e s have been s l o w e r t o 
abandon the v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d 
i n t h e 
a r e a o f w r o n g f u l d e a t h . 
I f 
t h e c h i l d i s 
s t i l l b o r n , a 
m a j o r i t y o f s t a t e s and 
the D i s t r i c t o f 
Columbia a l l o w r e c o v e r y 
i f t h e 
i n j u r y o c c u r r e d a f t e r v i a b i l i t y . See 
Aka 
v. J e f f e r s o n  
Hosp. , 344 A r k . 627, 
637 
n. 2, 42 S.W. 3d 508, 515 
n. 2 (2001) 
( n o t i n g 
t h a t 32 
j u r i s d i c t i o n s 
p e r m i t t e d t h e r e c o v e r y o f 
damages f o r 
t h e w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f a v i a b l e unborn 
c h i l d ) . 
A l t h o u g h some s t a t e s never p e r m i t r e c o v e r y f o r t h e w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h o f 
a p r e v i a b l e c h i l d ,
7 o t h e r s t a t e s p e r m i t r e c o v e r y i f 
7See Aka, 344 A r k . a t 640, 42 S.W. 3d 
a t 
516-17; B o l i n v.  
W i n g e r t , 764 N.E.2d 201, 207 (Ind. 2002); Humes v. C l i n t o n , 
246 Kan. 590, 596, 792 P.2d 1032, 1037 (1990); K a n d e l v.  
White, 339 
Md. 432, 
433, 
663 
A.2d 1264, 1265 (1995); T h i b e r t  
v. M i l k a , 419 Mass. 693, 
695, 
646 N.E.2d 1025, 1026 (1995); 
F r y o v e r v. F o r b e s , 433 M i c h . 878, 446 N.W.2d 292 
(1989); 
B l a c k b u r n v. B l u e M o u n t a i n Women's C l i n i c , 286 Mont. 60, 86, 
951 P.2d 
1, 
16 (1997) ( r e a f f i r m i n g Kuhnke v. F i s h e r , 210 Mont. 
114, 119-20, 683 
P.2d 916, 919 (1984) ( h o l d i n g t h a t an unborn 
c h i l d i s 
n o t a "minor 
c h i l d , " as t h a t term i s d e f i n e d by 
s t a t u t e ) ) ; W a l l a c e v. W a l l a c e , 120 N.H. 675, 677, 421 
A.2d 
134, 136 (1980); M i l l e r v. K i r k , 120 
N.M. 654, 
657, 
905 
P.2d 
194, 197 (1995); LaDu v. Oregon C l i n i c , P.C., 165 Or. 
App. 
687, 
693, 998 P.2d 733, 736 (2000) 
( " [ N ] o t h i n g i n 
t h e 
s t a t u t o r y c o n t e x t i n d i c a t e s t h a t a n o n v i a b l e f e t u s i s 
t o 
be 
c o n s i d e r e d a 'person' f o r 
p u r p o s e s o f t h e w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h 
23 
1100192 
the p r e v i a b l e c h i l d i s b o r n a l i v e and l a t e r 
d i e s .
8 
s t a t u t e s . " ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 331 Or. 244, 18 P.3d 1099 
(2000); 
C o v e l e s k i v. B u b n i s , 
535 Pa. 166, 170, 634 A.2d 608, 611 
(1993); 
M i c c o l i s v. AMICA Mut. Ins Co., 587 A.2d 67, 71 
( R . I . 
1991) 
; Crosby, 340 S.C. a t 629, 532 S.E.2d a t 857; and Baum v.  
B u r r i n g t o n , 119 Wash. App. 36, 43, 79 P.3d 456, 459-60 (2003), 
c e r t . d e n i e d , 151 Wash. 2d 1035, 95 P.3d 758 
(2004). 
8See, e.g., Hornbuckle v. P l a n t a t i o n P i p e L i n e Co., 212 
Ga. 504, 505, 93 S.E.2d 727, 728 (1954) ("Where a c h i l d i s 
born 
a f t e r a t o r t i o u s 
i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d a t any p e r i o d a f t e r 
c o n c e p t i o n , he has a cause of a c t i o n . " ) ; K e l l y v. Gregory, 125 
N.Y.S.2d 
696, 697, 282 A.D. 
542, 543-44 
(1953) 
( " [ L ] e g a l 
s e p a r a b i l i t y 
s h o u l d 
b e g i n 
where 
t h e r e 
i s 
b i o l o g i c a l 
s e p a r a b i l i t y . 
We know something more of t h e a c t u a l p r o c e s s o f 
c o n c e p t i o n and f o e t a l development now than when some o f t h e 
common law cases were d e c i d e d ; and what we know makes i t 
p o s s i b l e t o demonstrate c l e a r l y t h a t s e p a r a b i l i t y b e g i n s a t 
c o n c e p t i o n . " ) ; Simon v. M u l l i n , 34 Conn. Supp. 139, 147, 380 
A.2d 1353, 1357 (1977) ("The development o f t h e p r i n c i p l e of 
law t h a t now p e r m i t s r e c o v e r y by or on b e h a l f of a c h i l d born 
a l i v e 
f o r p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s 
s u f f e r e d a t any 
time 
a f t e r 
c o n c e p t i o n , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e v i a b i l i t y o f t h e f e t u s , i s 
a n o t a b l e i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the v i a b i l i t y o f our common l a w . " ) ; 
B e n n e t t v. Hymers, 101 N.H. 483, 485, 486, 147 A.2d 108, 110 
(1958) ("We adopt t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e f e t u s from the time of 
c o n c e p t i o n 
becomes 
a 
s e p a r a t e 
organism 
and 
remains 
so 
t h r o u g h o u t i t s l i f e . 
... 
We h o l d t h e r e f o r e t h a t an 
i n f a n t 
born 
a l i v e can m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r f o r p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s 
i n f l i c t e d upon i t 
by t h e t o r t o f a n o t h e r even i f i t 
had not r e a c h e d t h e s t a t e o f a v i a b l e f e t u s a t t h e time of 
i n j u r y . " ) ; Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353, 367, 157 A. 2d 497, 
504 
(1960) 
("We 
see no reason f o r d e n y i n g 
r e c o v e r y f o r a 
p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r y because i t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e i n f a n t was 
c a p a b l e of s e p a r a t e e x i s t e n c e . ... 
Whether v i a b l e o r not a t 
the time of t h e i n j u r y , t h e c h i l d s u s t a i n s t h e same harm a f t e r 
b i r t h , and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d be g i v e n t h e same o p p o r t u n i t y 
f o r 
r e d r e s s . " ) ; S i n k l e r v. K n e a l e , 401 Pa. 267, 273, 164 A.2d 93, 
96 (1960) ("As f o r t h e n o t i o n t h a t the c h i l d must have been 
v i a b l e when the i n j u r i e s were r e c e i v e d , which has c l a i m e d t h e 
a t t e n t i o n o f s e v e r a l of t h e s t a t e s , we r e g a r d i t as h a v i n g 
24 
1100192 
The 
most 
s i g n i f i c a n t 
s h i f t 
away 
from 
the 
v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d , however, has been i n the law of f e t a l h o m i c i d e . 
A t 
l e a s t 38 s t a t e s have e n a c t e d f e t a l - h o m i c i d e s t a t u t e s , and 
28 
of those s t a t u t e s p r o t e c t l i f e from c o n c e p t i o n . 
See S t a t e v.  
Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 
689 
n. 
46, 
998 
A.2d 
1, 
50 
n.46 
(2010) ("'[As of March 2010], a t l e a s t 
[ t h i r t y - e i g h t ] 
s t a t e s 
have f e t a l h o m i c i d e l a w s . ' " 
( q u o t i n g the N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e 
of 
S t a t e 
L e g i s l a t u r e s , F e t a l Homicide Laws 
(March 
2010) 
( a l t e r a t i o n s i n 
C o u r c h e s n e ) ) ) . 
Alabama's h o m i c i d e s t a t u t e , f o r example, d e f i n e s 
"person" 
s p e c i f i c a l l y t o i n c l u d e "an unborn c h i l d i n u t e r o a t any 
s t a g e 
of development, r e g a r d l e s s of v i a b i l i t y . " 
§ 
1 3 A - 6 - 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 
A l a . Code 1975. 
As J u s t i c e See wrote i n a s p e c i a l c o n c u r r e n c e 
j o i n e d 
by 
t h e n 
C h i e f 
J u s t i c e Nabers 
and 
J u s t i c e s S t u a r t , 
Smith, and 
P a r k e r 
i n Ziade 
v. Koch, 952 
So. 
2d 
1072, 
1082 
l i t t l e t o do w i t h the b a s i c r i g h t t o r e c o v e r , when the 
f o e t u s 
i s r e g a r d e d 
as h a v i n g 
e x i s t e n c e as a s e p a r a t e 
c r e a t u r e from 
the moment of c o n c e p t i o n . " ) ; 
T o r i g i a n v. Watertown New 
Co., 
352 Mass. 446, 
449, 
225 N.E. 
2d 926, 
927 
(1967) ("We 
are 
not 
i m p r e s s e d 
w i t h 
the 
soundness 
of 
the 
arguments 
a g a i n s t 
r e c o v e r y . 
They s h o u l d not p r e v a i l a g a i n s t l o g i c and 
j u s t i c e . 
We h o l d t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s i n t e s t a t e was a 'person'" f o r the 
purposes 
of 
the 
w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
s t a t u t e . ) ; 
and 
Day 
v. 
 
N a t i o n w i d e Mut. 
I n s . Co., 
328 So. 2d 560, 
562 
( F l a . D i s t . Ct. 
App. 
1976) 
("We 
h o l d t h a t a c h i l d b o r n a l i v e , h a v i n g s u f f e r e d 
p r e n a t a l i n j u r i e s a t any time a f t e r c o n c e p t i o n , has a cause of 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t the a l l e g e d t o r t f e a s o r . " ) . 
25 
1100192 
( A l a . 2006), the h o m i c i d e s t a t u t e " d e f i n e s 'person' t o i n c l u d e 
an 'unborn c h i l d . ' 
The 
l e g i s l a t u r e has thus r e c o g n i z e d under 
t h a t 
s t a t u t e 
t h a t , when 
an 
'unborn 
c h i l d ' 
i s 
k i l l e d , 
a 
'person' i s k i l l e d . " 
See 
a l s o Ankrom v. 
S t a t e , 
[Ms. CR-09-
1148, 
Aug. 
26, 
2011] 
So. 
3d 
, 
( A l a . Crim. 
App. 
2011) 
("Alabama's h o m i c i d e s t a t u t e 
... does a p p l y 
t o unborn 
c h i l d r e n . " ) . 
N o t i n g t h a t Alabama's h o m i c i d e s t a t u t e p r o t e c t s an unborn 
c h i l d 
b e f o r e 
v i a b i l i t y , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e c e n t l y 
h e l d 
t h a t , 
s i m i l a r l y , Alabama's "Wrongful Death A c t p e r m i t s an a c t i o n f o r 
the d e a t h of a p r e v i a b l e f e t u s . " 
Mack v. Carmack, 7 
9 So. 
3d 
597, 
611 
( A l a . 2011). 
In d e c i d i n g t h a t , f o r purposes of 
the 
W r o n g f u l Death A c t , a " p e r s o n " i n c l u d e s an unborn c h i l d a t 
any 
s t a g e of g e s t a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of 
"draw[ing] a l i n e t h a t a l l o w s 
r e c o v e r y 
on b e h a l f 
of a 
f e t u s 
i n j u r e d b e f o r e 
v i a b i l i t y t h a t d i e s a f t e r a c h i e v i n g 
v i a b i l i t y 
but t h a t p r e v e n t s r e c o v e r y 
on b e h a l f of a f e t u s i n j u r e d t h a t , 
as a r e s u l t of t h o s e i n j u r i e s , does not s u r v i v e t o 
v i a b i l i t y . " 
Mack, 79 So. 
3d a t 611. 
These developments i n Alabama match 
a l a r g e r p a t t e r n ; c u r r e n t l y , a t l e a s t n i n e o t h e r s t a t e s p e r m i t 
r e c o v e r y 
f o r the w r o n g f u l d e a t h of p r e v i a b l e unborn c h i l d r e n , 
f i v e 
by 
j u d i c i a l 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
-- 
M i s s o u r i , Oklahoma, Utah, 
26 
1100192 
South Dakota, and 
West V i r g i n i a
9 
-- and f o u r by s t a t u t e -¬
I l l i n o i s , 
L o u i s i a n a , 
Nebraska, and T e x a s .
1 0 
G e o r g i a and 
9 M i s s o u r i : Connor v. Monkem Co., 898 S.W.2d 89, 92 (Mo. 
1995) 
("[W]e cannot a v o i d the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e 
i n t e n d e d 
the c o u r t s t o i n t e r p r e t 'person' w i t h i n the w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h s t a t u t e t o a l l o w a n a t u r a l p a r e n t t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r 
the w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f h i s o r 
h e r 
unborn c h i l d , even p r i o r 
t o 
v i a b i l i t y . " ) ; Oklahoma: P i n o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 183 
P.3d 1001, 
1005 
(Okla. 2008) ("Our c o n s t r u c t i o n o f [Oklahoma's 
w r o n g f u l -
d e a t h s t a t u t e ] and 
t h e 
Oklahoma C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t a 
remedy be a f f o r d e d f o r t h e 
d e a t h o f a f e t u s , whether o r n o t 
v i a b l e and 
whether o r not b o r n a l i v e , and 
p r o h i b i t s 
a b r o g a t i n g 
such an a c t i o n . " ) ; Utah: 
C a r r a n z a v. U n i t e d 
S t a t e s , [No. 
20090409, Dec. 20, 2011] 
P.3d 
, 
(Utah 2011) 
( h o l d i n g " t h a t t h e 
s t a t u t e a l l o w s an a c t i o n f o r t h e w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h o f 
an unborn c h i l d ; t h e 
term 'minor c h i l d , ' as used 
i n 
the 
s t a t u t e , i n c l u d e s an unborn c h i l d " and n o t i n g 
t h a t t h e 
language o f t h e s t a t u t e b e i n g 
i n t e r p r e t e d by t h a t c o u r t had 
s i n c e been amended); South Dakota: Wiersma v. Maple 
L e a f  
Farms, 543 
N.W.2d 787, 791 (S.D. 1996) ("Based on our r e a d i n g 
of 
[South 
Dakota 
C o d i f i e d Law] 21-5-1, we 
c o n c l u d e t h e 
L e g i s l a t u r e c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d t o 
encompass n o n v i a b l e 
c h i l d r e n 
i n t h e term 
'unborn 
c h i l d . ' " ) ; 
West 
V i r g i n i a : 
F a r l e y v.  
S a r t i n , 195 
W.Va. 671, 
683, 
466 
S.E.2d 522, 534 (1995) ("[W]e, 
t h e r e f o r e , 
h o l d 
t h a t t h e term 
'person' ... encompasses a 
n o n v i a b l e 
unborn c h i l d and, 
t h u s , p e r m i t s a cause o f a c t i o n 
f o r t h e 
t o r t i o u s d e a t h o f such 
c h i l d . " ) . 
1
0 I l l i n o i s : 740 I l l . Comp. S t a t . 180/2.2 
(2011) ("The 
s t a t e o f g e s t a t i o n o r development o f a human b e i n g when an 
i n j u r y i s 
caused, when an i n j u r y t a k e s e f f e c t , o r a t d e a t h , 
s h a l l n o t f o r e c l o s e maintenance o f 
any cause o f a c t i o n under 
the law 
o f t h i s S t a t e a r i s i n g from t h e 
d e a t h o f 
a human b e i n g 
caused by w r o n g f u l a c t , n e g l e c t o r d e f a u l t . " ) ; L o u i s i a n a : L a . 
C i v . Code Ann. a r t . 26 (1999) ("An unborn 
c h i l d 
s h a l l be 
c o n s i d e r e d as a n a t u r a l p e r s o n f o r whatever r e l a t e s t o i t s 
i n t e r e s t s from the moment o f c o n c e p t i o n . 
I f the c h i l d i s b o r n 
dead, i t s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d 
never t o have 
e x i s t e d as a 
p e r s o n , e x c e p t f o r 
p u r p o s e s o f a c t i o n s 
r e s u l t i n g from i t s 
w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h . " ) ; 
Nebraska: Neb. Rev. S t a t . § 30-809(1) 
27 
1100192 
M i s s i s s i p p i p e r m i t r e c o v e r y o f 
damages f o r the w r o n g f u l d e a t h 
of a " q u i c k " unborn c h i l d p r e v i a b i l i t y .
1
1 
Thus, t h e 
law o f 
p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r y and f e t a l h o m i c i d e has 
moved d e c i d e d l y away 
from t h e 
v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d , 
w h i l e t h e 
law 
o f w r o n g f u l d e a t h 
has 
s l o w l y 
f o l l o w e d . 
I I . 
Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d 
i s n o t 
c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y 
i n 
 
w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
law. 
(2010) ("Whenever t h e 
d e a t h o f 
a p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g an unborn 
c h i l d i n 
u t e r o a t 
any s t a g e o f g e s t a t i o n , i s 
caused by 
t h e 
w r o n g f u l a c t , n e g l e c t , o r 
d e f a u l t ... the p e r s o n who ... would 
have been 
l i a b l e 
i f d e a t h had 
n o t ensued, i s l i a b l e i n 
an 
a c t i o n f o r damages, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e 
d e a t h o f 
t h e p e r s o n 
i n j u r e d 
. . . . " ) ; Texas: Texas C i v i l 
P r a c t i c e & Remedies Code 
Ann. 
§ 
71.001(2) 
and (4) (2011) 
("'Person' 
means an 
i n d i v i d u a l . ... 
' I n d i v i d u a l ' i n c l u d e s an unborn 
c h i l d a t 
e v e r y s t a g e o f g e s t a t i o n from f e r t i l i z a t i o n u n t i l 
b i r t h . " ) . 
1 1See 
P o r t e r v. L a s s i t e r , 91 
Ga. 
App. 
712, 
716, 
87 S.E.2d 
100, 103 (1955) ("'[A] s u i t may be m a i n t a i n e d by t h e 
mother 
f o r t h e 
l o s s o f 
a c h i l d t h a t was " q u i c k " i n 
h e r 
womb a t t h e 
time o f t h e h o m i c i d e . ... 
The c o u r t does n o t b e l i e v e 
i t 
n e c e s s a r y f o r 
t h e c h i l d t o be " v i a b l e " p r o v i d e d 
i t was 
" q u i c k " , 
t h a t i s " a b l e t o move i n i t s mother's womb."'" 
( q u o t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ) ) ; 66 F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union v. Tucker, 
853 
So. 2d 104, 112 
(Miss. 
2003) 
("[W]e h o l d 
t h a t our 
w r o n g f u l d e a t h s t a t u t e i n c l u d e s a f e t u s who i s ' q u i c k ' i n t h e 
womb as 
a 'person' w i t h i n the language o f 
t h a t s t a t u t e . " ) . 
See 
 
a l s o S h i r l e y v. Bacon, 154 
Ga. 
App. 
203, 
204, 
267 S.E.2d 
809, 
811 (1980) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e mere f a c t t h a t [the mother] 
had n o t f e l t t h e 
movement o f 
t h e f e t u s does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y 
mean t h a t t h e f e t u s d i d 
n o t move o r was n o t c a p a b l e o f 
movement a t 
t h e 
time o f 
t h e 
unborn c h i l d ' s 
d e a t h " ) . 
28 
1100192 
Some s t a t e c o u r t s have a p p l i e d Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d 
t o w r o n g f u l - d e a t h law, c i t i n g Roe as p r o h i b i t i n g t h e 
r e c o v e r y 
of damages f o r t h e 
w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f 
a c h i l d who d i e s w i t h o u t 
r e a c h i n g v i a b i l i t y .
1
2 
The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t 
Roe 
l i m i t e d C a l i f o r n i a ' s c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s p r o t e c t i n g unborn 
c h i l d r e n .
1 3 
M i s r e a d i n g Roe, t h e s e c o u r t s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e 
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n 
Roe t h a t s t a t e s have no 
i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e l i f e o f an unborn 
c h i l d 
b e f o r e 
v i a b i l i t y . 
A l t h o u g h 
b r o a d l y 
w r i t t e n , Roe does n o t s u p p o r t 
t h a t 
c o n c l u s i o n ; 
t h e s t a t e s 
a r e f o r b i d d e n t o p r o t e c t 
unborn 
1 2See, e.g., 
Toth v. Goree, 65 M i c h . App. 296, 
304, 
237 
N.W.2d 297, 301 (1975) ("There would be an i n h e r e n t c o n f l i c t 
i n g i v i n g t h e 
mother t h e 
r i g h t t o t e r m i n a t e t h e 
pregnancy y e t 
h o l d i n g t h a t an a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t on b e h a l f o f t h e 
same 
f e t u s under the w r o n g f u l d e a t h a c t . " ) ; W a l l a c e v. W a l l a c e , 120 
N.H. 675, 679, 421 A.2d 134, 137 (1980) 
( " [ I ] t would be 
i n c o n g r u o u s f o r 
a mother t o have a f e d e r a l 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t t o 
d e l i b e r a t e l y d e s t r o y a n o n v i a b l e f e t u s ... 
and 
a t t h e 
same time f o r a t h i r d p a r t y t o 
be s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y t o t h e 
f e t u s f o r h i s u n i n t e n d e d b u t m e r e l y n e g l i g e n t a c t s . " ) . 
See 
 
a l s o Aka, 344 A r k . 
a t 641, 42 S.W.3d a t 517-18; J u s t u s v.  
A t c h i s o n , 19 C a l . 3d 564, 577-78, 565 
P.2d 
122, 130-31 (1977), 
d i s a p p r o v e d on o t h e r grounds, Ochoa v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 39 
C a l . 
3d 159, 703 
P.2d 
1 (1985); Hamby v. M c D a n i e l , 559 
S.W.2d 
774, 
778 
(Tenn. 1977); and S t a t e ex. r e l . 
H a r d i n v. Sanders, 538 
S.W.2d 336, 339 (Mo. 1976). 
1 3 P e o p l e v. Smith, 59 C a l . App. 3d 751, 
129 C a l . R p t r . 
498, 501 (1976) . 
29 
1100192 
c h i l d r e n o n l y i n 
ways t h a t 
c o n f l i c t w i t h a woman's 
" r i g h t . " 
Roe 
h e l d 
t h a t a p r e g n a n t woman's " r i g h t o f p r i v a c y ... 
i s 
b r o a d enough t o 
encompass a woman's d e c i s i o n whether o r 
n o t t o 
t e r m i n a t e h e r 
pregnancy." 
410 U.S. a t 153. See a l s o P l a n n e d  
P a r e n t h o o d v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 
844 (1992) 
( d e s c r i b i n g Roe 
as " h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 
C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o t e c t s a woman's r i g h t t o 
t e r m i n a t e h e r pregnancy i n i t s 
e a r l y 
s t a g e s " ) . 
No one, 
however, 
o t h e r 
t h a n a woman 
s e e k i n g t o " t e r m i n a t e h e r 
pregnancy," p o s s e s s e s t h e " r i g h t " c r e a t e d i n 
Roe. N o t h i n g 
i n 
Roe 
i n d i c a t e d t h a t anyone o t h e r than t h e p r e g n a n t woman has 
any r i g h t t o t e r m i n a t e h e r 
pregnancy and t h e r e b y t o cause t h e 
d e a t h o f h e r unborn 
c h i l d . 
Roe does n o t 
p r o h i b i t s t a t e s from p r o t e c t i n g unborn human 
l i v e s . 
To t h e c o n t r a r y , 
i n Casey, 
t h e Supreme 
C o u r t 
acknowledged t h a t "the S t a t e has l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t s from 
t h e 
o u t s e t o f t h e 
pregnancy" i n 
p r o t e c t i n g t h e 
unborn c h i l d , 505 
U.S. a t 846, and a " s u b s t a n t i a l s t a t e i n t e r e s t i n p o t e n t i a l 
l i f e t h r o u g h o u t pregnancy." 505 U.S. a t 876. Thus, u n l e s s a 
s t a t e ' s law c o n f l i c t s w i t h a woman's " r i g h t " t o an a b o r t i o n , 
the s t a t e law does n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h Roe. See a l s o G o n z a l e s  
v. C a r h a r t , 550 U.S. 124, 
158 (2007) 
( n o t i n g t h a t " t h e S t a t e , 
from t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h e pregnancy," has an i n t e r e s t 
" i n 
30 
1100192 
p r o t e c t i n g 
the 
l i f e " 
of 
the 
unborn 
c h i l d ) . 
Webster 
v. 
 
R e p r o d u c t i v e 
H e a l t h 
S e r v s . , 
492 
U.S. 
490, 
516 
(1989); 
and 
H a r r i s v. McRae, 448 U.S. 
297, 313 
(1980). 
Roe's statement 
t h a t unborn c h i l d r e n are not 
" p e r s o n s " 
w i t h i n the meaning of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment i s i r r e l e v a n t 
t o the q u e s t i o n whether unborn c h i l d r e n are " p e r s o n s " 
under 
s t a t e 
law. 
Because 
the 
F o u r t e e n t h 
Amendment 
" r i g h t " 
r e c o g n i z e d 
i n Roe 
i s not 
i m p l i c a t e d u n l e s s 
s t a t e a c t i o n 
v i o l a t e s a woman's " r i g h t " t o end a pregnancy, the o t h e r p a r t s 
of 
the 
s u p e r s t r u c t u r e 
of 
Roe, 
i n c l u d i n g 
the 
v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d , are not c o n t r o l l i n g o u t s i d e a b o r t i o n law. 
Many s t a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t , e x c e p t 
i n the case of a b o r t i o n , Roe does not l i m i t s t a t e c r i m i n a l or 
c i v i l 
p r o t e c t i o n of 
the 
unborn 
c h i l d .
1
4 
J u s t i c e 
Maddox 
787, 
t o 
1 4See, e.g., Wiersma v. Maple L e a f Farms, 543 N.W.2d 7 
792 
(S.D. 
1996) 
(Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d not a p p l i c a b l e 
w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n ) ; Commonwealth v. B u l l o c k , 590 Pa. 
480, 
491-92, 
913 
A.2d 
207, 
214 
(2006) 
(Roe 
does 
not 
p r o h i b i t 
c h a r g i n g 
k i l l e r 
of 
unborn 
c h i l d 
w i t h 
murder); 
S t a t e 
v. 
 
MacGuire, 
84 
P.3d 
1171, 
1179-80 
(Utah 2004) 
( P a r r i s h , 
J . , 
c o n c u r r i n g ) 
(Roe does not p r o h i b i t c h a r g i n g k i l l e r of unborn 
c h i l d w i t h murder); 
66 F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union v. Tucker, 
853 
So. 2d 104, 113-14 ( M i s s . 2003) (Roe does not a p p l y t o a c t i o n 
b r o u g h t under w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
s t a t u t e ) ; 
F a r l e y v. S a r t i n , 
195 
W.Va. 
671, 683-84 & n. 28, 466 S.E.2d 522, 534-35 & n.28 
(Roe 
does not a p p l y t o w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n ) ; People v. D a v i s , 7 
C a l . 
4th 797, 
809, 
872 P.2d 
591, 598 
(1994) (Roe's v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d does not a p p l y i n the c o n t e x t of f e t a l murder); S t a t e 
31 
1100192 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h i s 
d i s t i n c t i o n 
i n h i s d i s s e n t 
i n G e n t r y v. 
G i l m o r e , 613 So. 2d 1241, 1247 ( A l a . 1993): 
"Roe and i t s progeny a d d r e s s t h e 
p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s 
between a woman's 
r i g h t t o an a b o r t i o n and t h e 
S t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t i n t h e woman's 
h e a l t h and t h e 
f e t u s ' s 
l i f e . 
Roe i s not i m p l i c a t e d when, as 
i n 
t h i s 
case, 
b o t h t h e S t a t e 
and t h e mother 
have 
 
congruent i n t e r e s t s i n 
p r e s e r v i n g 
l i f e and p u n i s h i n g  
i t s 
w r o n g f u l 
d e s t r u c t i o n . 
I c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e has a r i g h t t o p r o t e c t n o n v i a b l e 
f e t a l 
l i f e when i t s i n t e r e s t i s 
congruent w i t h t h a t o f t h e 
mother." 
v. 
M e r r i l l , 450 N.W.2d 318, 322 (Minn. 1990) ("Roe v. Wade 
p r o t e c t s t h e woman's r i g h t o f c h o i c e ; i t 
does not p r o t e c t , 
much l e s s c o n f e r on an a s s a i l a n t , a t h i r d - p a r t y 
u n i l a t e r a l 
r i g h t t o d e s t r o y t h e f e t u s . " ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 496 U.S. 931 
(1990) 
; S u m m e r f i e l d v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 144 A r i z . 467, 
478, 
698 
P.2d 
712, 723 (1985) (Roe does n o t a p p l y t o w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n ) ; and O'Grady v. Brown, 654 S.W.2d 904, 910 (Mo. 
1983) 
( n o t i n g 
t h a t Roe, " w h i l e 
h o l d i n g 
t h a t t h e f e t u s i s n o t a 
p e r s o n f o r 
p u r p o s e s o f t h e 1 4 t h 
amendment, does n o t mandate 
the 
c o n c l u s i o n 
t h a t t h e f e t u s i s a n o n e n t i t y " ) . 
See a l s o  
Crosby, 340 S.C. a t 642, 532 S.E.2d a t 864 
( T o a l , J . , 
d i s s e n t i n g ) 
("Unlike a b o r t i o n c a s e s , w r o n g f u l d e a t h a c t i o n s do 
not a u t o m a t i c a l l y i m p l i c a t e any c o u n t e r v a i l i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
l i b e r t i e s . 
No one can argue i n t h i s case t h a t t h e s t a t e o r 
f e d e r a l 
c o n s t i t u t i o n 
s h i e l d s 
t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' 
a l l e g e d l y 
w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t . " ) ; Lawrence v. S t a t e , 240 S.W.3d 912, 917-18 
& n.24 (Tex. 
Crim. App. 2007) (Roe does n o t p r o h i b i t s t a t e 
from c h a r g i n g 
k i l l e r 
o f unborn 
c h i l d w i t h 
c a p i t a l murder), 
c e r t . d e n i e d , 553 
U.S. 1007 (2008); S t a t e v. A l f i e r i , 132 Ohio 
App. 3d 69, 78-79, 724 N.E.2d 477, 483 (1998) (Roe does n o t 
p r o h i b i t s t a t e from c r i m i n a l i z i n g f e t a l h o m i c i d e ) ; and People  
v. F o r d , 221 I l l . App. 3d 354, 368-69, 581 N.E.2d 1189, 1199 
(1991) (Roe 
does n o t a p p l y t o t h i r d - p a r t y a s s a u l t o f p r e g n a n t 
woman, w h i c h k i l l s t h e 
unborn 
c h i l d ) . 
32 
1100192 
S c h o l a r s have a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f Roe.
1 5 
For 
t h e s e r e a s o n s , Roe i s 
n o t c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s case. 
I I I . Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d i s 
n o t p e r s u a s i v e . 
Numerous s c h o l a r s have c r i t i c i z e d t h e v i a b i l i t y r u l e o f 
Roe.
1 6 
Today, " t h e r e i s b r o a d academic agreement t h a t Roe 
1 5See, e.g., C l a r k e D. F o r s y t h e , Homicide o f t h e Unborn  
C h i l d : The Born A l i v e Rule and Other L e g a l Anachronisms, 21 
V a l . U. L. Rev. 563, 614 (1987) ("[Roe] does n o t a p p l y t o 
t h e 
c o n t e x t o f n o n c o n s e n s u a l t h i r d p a r t y a c t s a g a i n s t t h e unborn 
c h i l d . " ) ; 
J e f f r e y A. 
P a r n e s s , 
Crimes A g a i n s t t h e Unborn:  
P r o t e c t i n g and R e s p e c t i n g t h e P o t e n t i a l i t y o f Human L i f e , 22 
Harv. J . on L e g i s . 97, 112 (1985) ("The d e c i s i o n i n 
Roe does 
not p r e c l u d e t h e s t a t e from p r o t e c t i n g p r e v i a b l e f e t a l 
l i f e 
when such 
p r o t e c t i o n i s r e a s o n a b l e 
and i n f r i n g e s upon no 
fundamental o r o t h e r f e d e r a l o r s t a t e r i g h t 
" ) ; 
and D a v i d 
Kadar, The Law o f T o r t i o u s P r e n a t a l Death S i n c e Roe v. Wade, 
45 Mo. L. Rev. 639, 657 (1980) ("Roe v. Wade n e i t h e r p r o h i b i t s 
nor compels c o n s i s t e n c y o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e meaning o f 
'person' 
as between t h e f o u r t e e n t h amendment and w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h 
s t a t u t e s . " ) . 
1 6Randy Beck, S e l f - C o n s c i o u s D i c t a : The O r i g i n s o f Roe v. 
Wade's T r i m e s t e r Framework, 51 Am. J . L e g a l H i s t . 505, 516-26 
(2011); Randy Beck, G o n z a l e s , Casey, and t h e V i a b i l i t y 
R u l e , 
103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 249, 268-70 (2009); P a u l Benjamin L i n t o n , 
P l a n n e d 
Parenthood v. Casey: The F l i g h t From Reason i n 
t h e 
 
Supreme C o u r t , 13 S t . L o u i s U. Pub. L. Rev. 15, 38-40 
(1993); 
Mark Tushnet, Two Notes on t h e J u r i s p r u d e n c e o f P r i v a c y , 8 
Const. Com. 75, 83 (1991) ( " [ U ] s i n g t h e l i n e o f v i a b i l i t y t o 
d i s t i n g u i s h t h e time when a b o r t i o n i s 
p e r m i t t e d from t h e time 
a f t e r v i a b i l i t y when i t 
i s 
p r o h i b i t e d (as 
Roe v. Wade d o e s ) , 
i s e n t i r e l y p e r v e r s e . " ) ; John H a r t E l y , The Wages o f C r y i n g  
Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Y a l e L . J . 920, 924-25 
(1973); 
and Mark J . B e u t l e r , A b o r t i o n and t h e 
V i a b i l i t y  
S t a n d a r d 
-- Toward a More Reasoned 
D e t e r m i n a t i o n 
o f t h e  
S t a t e ' s C o u n t e r v a i l i n g I n t e r e s t i n P r o t e c t i n g P r e n a t a l 
L i f e , 
21 Seton 
H a l l L. Rev. 347, 359 (1991) ( " I t 
i s d i f f i c u l t t o 
33 
1100192 
f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e an adequate e x p l a n a t i o n f o r 
t h e v i a b i l i t y 
r u l e . " 
Randy Beck, G o n z a l e s , Casey, and t h e V i a b i l i t y 
R u l e , 
103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 249, 268-69 
(2009). 
A. 
Roe m i s s t a t e d t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e unborn 
c h i l d 
 
under t h e 
common 
law. 
Roe's v i a b i l i t y r u l e was based, i n s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t , on 
an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f l e g a l h i s t o r y . The Supreme C o u r t 
i n 
Roe 
e r r o n e o u s l y 
c o n c l u d e d t h a t " t h e 
unborn have never been 
r e c o g n i z e d i n 
t h e law as p e r s o n s i n 
t h e whole sense." 
410 
U.S. 
a t 162. Roe a l s o r e f e r r e d t o " t h e 
l e n i t y o f t h e 
common 
law." 
410 U.S. a t 165. 
However, s c h o l a r s have 
r e p e a t e d l y 
p o i n t e d t o i n a c c u r a c i e s i n 
Roe's h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t s i n c e Roe 
was 
d e c i d e d i n 1973.
1 7 
"[T]he h i s t o r y embraced i n 
Roe would 
u n d e r s t a n d why v i a b i l i t y 
s h o u l d be r e l e v a n t t o , 
much l e s s 
c o n t r o l , t h e measure o f a s t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g 
p r e n a t a l 
l i f e . " ) . 
See g e n e r a l l y 
Douglas E. Ruston, The  
T o r t i o u s Loss o f a N o n v i a b l e F e t u s : A M i s c a r r i a g e Leads t o 
a 
 
M i s c a r r i a g e o f J u s t i c e , 61 S.C. L. Rev. 915 (2010); 
J u s t i n 
C u r t i s , I n c l u d i n g V i c t i m s W i t h o u t a V o i c e : Amending 
I n d i a n a ' s  
C h i l d W r o n g f u l Death S t a t u t e , 43 V a l . U. L. Rev. 1211 (2009); 
and Sarah J . L o q u i s t , The W r o n g f u l Death o f a F e t u s : 
E r a s i n g 
 
the B a r r i e r Between V i a b i l i t y and N o n v i a b i l i t y , 36 Washburn 
L . J . 259 (1997); see a l s o t h e s o u r c e s c i t e d by J u s t i c e Maddox 
i n h i s d i s s e n t i n 
G e n t r y v. G i l m o r e , 613 So. 2d a t 1248-49. 
1 7See g e n e r a l l y Joseph D e l l a p e n n a , D i s p e l l i n g the Myths o f 
 
A b o r t i o n H i s t o r y ( C a r o l i n a Academic P r e s s 2006); John Keown, 
A b o r t i o n , 
D o c t o r s and t h e Law: Some A s p e c t s o f t h e L e g a l  
R e g u l a t i o n o f 
A b o r t i o n i n 
E n g l a n d from 1803 
t o 
1982 (Cambridge 
34 
1100192 
not w i t h s t a n d c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n even when Roe was 
w r i t t e n . " 
Joseph D e l l a p e n n a , D i s p e l l i n g the Myths o f A b o r t i o n H i s t o r y 
126 
( C a r o l i n a Academic P r e s s 2006). 
S i r 
W i l l i a m 
B l a c k s t o n e , f o r example, 
r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t 
unborn 
c h i l d r e n were p e r s o n s . 
A l t h o u g h 
the 
C o u r t 
c i t e d 
B l a c k s t o n e i n Roe, i t f a i l e d t o note t h a t B l a c k s t o n e a d d r e s s e d 
the 
l e g a l 
p r o t e c t i o n of the unborn 
c h i l d w i t h i n a 
s e c t i o n 
e n t i t l e d "The 
Law of P e r s o n s . " 
I t a l s o i g n o r e d the opening 
l i n e of h i s p a r a g r a p h d e s c r i b i n g the law's t r e a t m e n t o f the 
unborn 
c h i l d : 
" L i f e 
i s an immediate 
g i f t 
o f God, 
a 
r i g h t 
i n h e r e n t 
by 
n a t u r e 
i n 
e v e r y 
i n d i v i d u a l . " 
1 
W i l l i a m 
B l a c k s t o n e , Commentaries on the Laws of E n g l a n d *129.
1 8 
As 
U n i v e r s i t y 
P r e s s 
1988). 
See 
a l s o 
P a u l Benjamin 
L i n t o n , 
P l a n n e d P a r e n t h o o d v. Casey: 
The 
F l i g h t from Reason i n the  
Supreme C o u r t , 13 S t . L o u i s U. Pub. L. Rev. 15 (1993); Dennis 
J . Horan, C l a r k e D. 
F o r s y t h e & Edward R. 
G r a n t , Two 
S h i p s 
 
P a s s i n g 
i n 
the 
N i g h t : 
An 
I n t e r p r e t a v i s t 
Review 
of 
the 
 
W h i t e - S t e v e n s C o l l o q u y on Roe v. Wade, 6 S t . L o u i s U. Pub. L. 
Rev. 
229, 
230 
n.8, 
241 
n.90 
(1987); James S. 
W i t h e r s p o o n , 
Reexamining Roe: N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y A b o r t i o n S t a t u t e s and the  
F o u r t e e n t h Amendment, 17 S t . Mary's L . J . 29, 70 (1985) 
("In 
s h o r t , the Supreme C o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s i n Roe 
v. Wade of the 
development, 
p u r p o s e s , and the u n d e r s t a n d i n g s u n d e r l y i n g the 
n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y a n t i a b o r t i o n 
s t a t u t e s , was 
f u n d a m e n t a l l y 
e r r o n e o u s . " ) ; 
and 
R o b e r t 
B y r n , 
An 
American 
Tragedy: 
The 
 
Supreme C o u r t on A b o r t i o n , 41 Fordham L. Rev. 807 
(1973). 
1 8See D e l l a p e n n a , a t 200: 
"[M]odern r e s e a r c h has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t by the c l o s e 
35 
1100192 
P r o f e s s o r D a v i d Kadar n o t e d i n 
1980, " R i g h t s and p r o t e c t i o n s 
l e g a l l y a f f o r d e d t h e 
unborn c h i l d a r e 
o f a n c i e n t v i n t a g e . I n 
e q u i t y , p r o p e r t y , c r i m e , and t o r t , t h e 
unborn has r e c e i v e d and 
c o n t i n u e s t o r e c e i v e a l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t y . " 
D a v i d Kadar, The  
Law o f T o r t i o u s P r e n a t a l Death S i n c e Roe v. Wade, 45 Mo. L. 
Rev. 639, 639 (1980) ( f o o t n o t e s 
o m i t t e d ) . 
B. 
Roe m i s s t a t e d t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e unborn 
c h i l d 
 
under t o r t law and c r i m i n a l 
law. 
P r o f e s s o r Kadar and o t h e r s have p o i n t e d out "the m i s t a k e n 
d i s c u s s i o n w i t h i n Roe on t h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f t h e unborn i n 
t o r t l a w . " 
Kadar, 45 Mo. L. Rev. a t 652. 
The C o u r t ' s 
d i s c u s s i o n i n Roe o f 
p r e n a t a l - d e a t h r e c o v e r y "was p e r f u n c t o r y , 
and u n f o r t u n a t e l y l a r g e l y i n a c c u r a t e , and s h o u l d not 
be r e l i e d 
upon as t h e c o r r e c t view o f t h e law a t t h e time o f Roe v. 
of 
t h e s e v e n t e e n t h 
c e n t u r y , 
t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f 
a b o r t i o n under t h e 
common law 
was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . 
C o u r t s had r e n d e r e d c l e a r h o l d i n g s t h a t a b o r t i o n was 
a 
c r i m e , 
no d e c i s i o n 
i n d i c a t e d t h a t any form o f 
a b o r t i o n 
was 
l a w f u l , and s e c o n d a r y 
a u t h o r i t i e s 
s i m i l a r l y 
u n i f o r m l y 
s u p p o r t e d t h e c r i m i n a l i t y o f 
a b o r t i o n . 
The 
o n l y 
d i f f e r e n c e 
among 
t h e s e 
a u t h o r i t i e s had been t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e crime 
(misdemeanor o r f e l o n y ) , an u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t , under 
Coke's i n f l u e n c e , began t o s e t t l e i n t o t h e p a t t e r n 
of h o l d i n g a b o r t i o n t o be a misdemeanor u n l e s s t h e 
c h i l d was b o r n a l i v e and then d i e d from t h e i n j u r i e s 
or p o t i o n s t h a t l e d t o i t s premature 
b i r t h . " 
36 
1100192 
Wade." 45 Mo. L. Rev. 
a t 652-53. See a l s o W i l l i a m R. Hopkin, 
J r . , 
Roe v. Wade 
and t h e T r a d i t i o n a l 
L e g a l 
Standards 
 
C o n c e r n i n g 
Pregnancy, 47 Temp. L.Q. 715, 723 (1974) 
( " [ I ] t 
must r e s p e c t f u l l y be p o i n t e d out t h a t J u s t i c e Blackmun has 
u n d e r s t a t e d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e law p r o t e c t s t h e unborn 
c h i l d . " ) . 
Roe's a d o p t i o n o f t h e v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d i n 
1973 d i d 
n o t 
r e f l e c t American law. 
V i a b i l i t y p l a y e d no r o l e i n 
t h e 
common 
law o f p r o p e r t y , h o m i c i d e , o r a b o r t i o n . 
C l a r k e D. F o r s y t h e , 
Homicide o f t h e Unborn C h i l d : The Born A l i v e Rule and Other  
L e g a l Anachronisms, 21 V a l . U. L. Rev. 563, 
569 n.33 (1987). 
And 
t h e r e was no v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d i n w r o n g f u l - d e a t h law 
because t h e 
common law 
d i d n o t 
r e c o g n i z e a cause o f a c t i o n f o r 
the w r o n g f u l d e a t h o f 
any p e r s o n . 
F a r l e y v. S a r t i n , 195 W.Va. 
at 674, 
466 S.E.2d a t 525 ("At 
common law, t h e r e was no cause 
of a c t i o n f o r 
t h e w r o n g f u l 
d e a t h o f a p e r s o n . " ) ; W
. Page 
Keeton e t a l . , P r o s s e r and Keeton on t h e 
Law o f T o r t s § 
127, 
at 945 (5th ed. 1984) ("The common law 
not o n l y d e n i e d a t o r t 
r e c o v e r y f o r i n j u r y once t h e t o r t v i c t i m had d i e d , i t 
a l s o 
r e f u s e d t o r e c o g n i z e any new and independent cause o f a c t i o n 
i n t h e 
v i c t i m ' s dependants o r h e i r s f o r t h e i r own l o s s a t h i s 
d e a t h . " ) . 
37 
1100192 
The 
v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d was 
i n t r o d u c e d 
i n t o American 
law 
by B o n b r e s t v. K a t z , 
65 F. Supp. 138 
(D.D.C. 1946), the 
f i r s t 
case t o r e c o g n i z e 
a cause of a c t i o n 
f o r p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s . 
B o n b r e s t 
i m p l i e d 
t h a t 
such 
a 
cause 
of 
a c t i o n 
would 
be 
r e c o g n i z e d 
o n l y i f the unborn c h i l d had r e a c h e d v i a b i l i t y . 
65 
F. Supp. a t 
140. 
V i a b i l i t y was 
i n i t i a l l y adopted by 
c o u r t s 
i n 
p r e n a t a l -
i n j u r y law, but 
i t s i n f l u e n c e was waning by 1961. 
See 
Daley  
v. M e i e r , 33 
I l l . 
App. 
2d 218, 
178 N.E.2d 691 
(1961) 
( h o l d i n g 
t h a t an i n f a n t b o r n a l i v e c o u l d r e c o v e r damages f o r 
i n j u r i e s 
s u f f e r e d b e f o r e v i a b i l i t y ) ; see a l s o Note, T o r t s -- 
E x t e n s i o n 
 
of P r e n a t a l I n j u r y D o c t r i n e t o N o n v i a b l e I n f a n t s , 11 DePaul L. 
Rev. 
361 
(1961-62). 
One 
t h o r o u g h l e g a l s u r v e y of 
p r e n a t a l -
i n j u r y 
law 
a decade b e f o r e Roe 
was 
d e c i d e d c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
" [ t ] h e v i a b i l i t y l i m i t a t i o n i n p r e n a t a l i n j u r y cases i s headed 
f o r 
o b l i v i o n . 
C o u r t s 
are 
coming 
t o 
r e a l i z e 
t h a t 
i t 
i s 
i l l o g i c a l and u n j u s t t o the c h i l d r e n a f f e c t e d and not 
r e a d i l y 
amenable t o s c i e n t i f i c p r o o f . " 
C h a r l e s A. L i n t g e n , The Impact  
of M e d i c a l Knowledge on the Law R e l a t i n g t o P r e n a t a l 
I n j u r i e s , 
110 
U. 
Pa. L. Rev. 
554, 
600 
(1962). 
C. 
Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d was 
d i c t u m . 
38 
1100192 
The 
v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d adopted i n 
Roe 
was d i c t u m . 
Randy 
Beck, 
S e l f - C o n s c i o u s 
D i c t a : The O r i g i n s o f Roe v. Wade's 
T r i m e s t e r Framework, 51 
Am. J . 
L e g a l H i s t . 505, 516-26 (2011). 
I t was 
n o t 
a p a r t o f e i t h e r the Texas s t a t u t e a d d r e s s e d i n 
Roe 
or t h e 
G e o r g i a s t a t u t e a d d r e s s e d i n 
Doe v. B o l t o n , 410 
U.S. 
179 
(1973); n e i t h e r case was c o n d i t i o n e d on v i a b i l i t y . 
I n 
f a c t , t h e v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d was adopted i n 
Roe w i t h o u t any 
e v i d e n t i a r y 
r e c o r d and was n o t d i s c u s s e d i n 
t h e b r i e f s o r 
arguments. 
Beck, 51 Am. J . L e g a l 
H i s t . a t 511-12. 
The 
v i a b i l i t y 
r u l e 
was 
a l s o 
d i c t u m 
i n Casey 
because t h e 
P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t u t e a t 
i s s u e i n t h a t case was 
n o t 
c o n d i t i o n e d 
on v i a b i l i t y but a p p l i e d t h r o u g h o u t a 
woman's pregnancy. Beck, 
103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 
a t 271-76. 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , "the Roe C o u r t ' s 
i n t e r n a l 
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e " 
demonstrates t h a t the J u s t i c e s themselves 
r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 
t h e 
v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d was n o t o n l y 
" ' a r b i t r a r y , ' " b u t a l s o 
" ' u n n e c e s s a r y . ' " 
Beck, 51 
Am. J . L e g a l H i s t . 505, 
520, 521, 
52 6; see a l s o Randy Beck, The E s s e n t i a l H o l d i n g o f Casey: 
R e t h i n k i n g V i a b i l i t y , 75 
UMKC L. 
Rev. 
713, 
713 (2007) ( q u o t i n g 
J u s t i c e Blackmun's " I n t e r n a l Supreme C o u r t Memo," as 
q u o t e d i n 
D a v i d J . Garrow, L i b e r t y & S e x u a l i t y : 
The R i g h t t o 
P r i v a c y 
and 
 
the Making o f Roe v. Wade 580 (1994)) ("'"You w i l l 
observe 
39 
1100192 
t h a t I have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e 
end o f t h e f i r s t t r i m e s t e r i s 
c r i t i c a l . 
T h i s i s a r b i t r a r y , b u t perhaps any o t h e r 
s e l e c t e d 
p o i n t , 
such 
as 
q u i c k e n i n g 
o r 
v i a b i l i t y , 
i s 
e q u a l l y 
a r b i t r a r y . " ' " ) . 
D. 
Roe's v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d was 
i n c o h e r e n t . 
The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has "never j u s t i f i e d " t h e 
v i a b i l i t y 
r u l e o f Roe and Casey " i n 
e i t h e r l e g a l o r m o r a l 
terms." 
Randy Beck, 103 
Nw. U. L. Rev. 
a t 
249; 
see a l s o Beck, 
103 Nw. U. L. Rev. a t 253, 268-69 & n. 116 (and 
a u t h o r i t i e s 
c i t e d 
t h e r e i n ) . 
J u s t i c e 
White 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h e l a c k o f 
f o u n d a t i o n 
f o r t h e v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d 
i n h i s d i s s e n t i n 
Thornburgh 
v. 
American 
C o l l e g e 
o f 
O b s t e t r i c i a n s 
& 
G y n e c o l o g i s t s , 
476 U.S. 
747, 794-95 
(1986)(White, J . , 
d i s s e n t i n g ) : 
"A second, 
e q u a l l y 
b a s i c 
e r r o r 
i n f e c t s t h e 
C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n 
Roe v. Wade. 
The d e t a i l e d 
s e t 
of 
r u l e s g o v e r n i n g s t a t e 
r e s t r i c t i o n s on a b o r t i o n 
t h a t t h e C o u r t 
f i r s t 
a r t i c u l a t e d i n Roe and has 
s i n c e 
r e f i n e d and e l a b o r a t e d 
p r e s u p p o s e s n o t o n l y 
t h a t t h e woman's l i b e r t y t o choose an a b o r t i o n i s 
f u n d a m e n t a l , 
b u t 
a l s o 
t h a t 
t h e 
S t a t e ' s 
c o u n t e r v a i l i n g 
i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g 
f e t a l 
l i f e 
(or, as t h e C o u r t would have i t , ' p o t e n t i a l human 
l i f e , ' 410 U.S., a t 159) becomes 
' c o m p e l l i n g ' 
o n l y 
a t t h e p o i n t a t w h i c h t h e f e t u s i s v i a b l e . 
As 
J u s t i c e O'Connor p o i n t e d out t h r e e y e a r s ago i n h e r 
d i s s e n t i n Akron v. Akron C e n t e r f o r R e p r o d u c t i v e 
 
H e a l t h , I n c . , 462 U.S. [416], a t 461 [ ( 1 9 8 3 ) ] , t h e 
C o u r t ' s c h o i c e o f v i a b i l i t y as t h e p o i n t a t which 
40 
1100192 
the S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t becomes c o m p e l l i n g i s e n t i r e l y 
a r b i t r a r y . The C o u r t ' s 
' e x p l a n a t i o n ' f o r t h e l i n e i t 
has 
drawn i s t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t 
becomes 
c o m p e l l i n g a t v i a b i l i t y 
'because t h e f e t u s 
t h e n 
presumably has t h e c a p a c i t y o f m e a n i n g f u l 
l i f e 
o u t s i d e t h e 
mother's womb.' 
410 
U.S., a t 163. As 
one 
c r i t i c 
o f Roe has o b s e r v e d , 
t h i s 
argument 
'mistakes a d e f i n i t i o n f o r 
a s y l l o g i s m . ' 
E l y , The 
Wages o f C r y i n g Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 
Y a l e L . J . 920, 
924 (1973). 
"The 
g o v e r n m e n t a l 
i n t e r e s t 
a t i s s u e i s 
i n 
p r o t e c t i n g those who w i l l be c i t i z e n s i f t h e i r l i v e s 
are n o t ended i n 
t h e 
womb. 
The s u b s t a n t i a l i t y o f 
t h i s 
i n t e r e s t 
i s i n no way dependent on t h e 
p r o b a b i l i t y 
t h a t 
t h e f e t u s may be 
c a p a b l e o f 
s u r v i v i n g o u t s i d e t h e 
womb a t 
any 
g i v e n p o i n t i n i t s 
development, as 
t h e 
p o s s i b i l i t y 
o f f e t a l s u r v i v a l 
i s 
c o n t i n g e n t on t h e s t a t e o f m e d i c a l 
p r a c t i c e and 
t e c h n o l o g y , 
f a c t o r s t h a t a r e 
i n 
essence m o r a l l y and 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 
i r r e l e v a n t . 
The S t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t 
i s i n 
t h e f e t u s as an e n t i t y i n i t s e l f , and t h e 
c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s 
e n t i t y does n o t change a t 
t h e 
p o i n t 
o f 
v i a b i l i t y 
under 
c o n v e n t i o n a l 
m e d i c a l 
wisdom. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
t h e S t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t , i f 
c o m p e l l i n g 
a f t e r 
v i a b i l i t y , i s e q u a l l y 
c o m p e l l i n g 
b e f o r e 
v i a b i l i t y . " 
S i m i l a r l y , i n 
t h e a r t i c l e 
c i t e d by J u s t i c e White, 
P r o f e s s o r 
John H a r t E l y n o t e d t h a t Roe j u s t i f i e d t h e v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d 
w i t h a d e f i n i t i o n : 
"The 
C o u r t ' s 
response 
here 
i s s i m p l y n o t 
adequate. 
I t a g r e e s , 
i n d e e d i t 
h o l d s , 
t h a t 
a f t e r 
the p o i n t o f v i a b i l i t y (a concept i t 
f a i l s t o note 
w i l l become even l e s s 
c l e a r t h a n i t 
i s 
now as t h e 
t e c h n o l o g y 
o f b i r t h 
c o n t i n u e s 
t o develop) t h e 
i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e f e t u s i s c o m p e l l i n g . 
E x a c t l y why t h a t i s 
t h e magic moment i s 
n o t made 
c l e a r : 
V i a b i l i t y , 
as t h e C o u r t 
d e f i n e s 
i t , 
i s 
a c h i e v e d some s i x t o t w e l v e weeks a f t e r 
q u i c k e n i n g . 
41 
1100192 
( Q u i c k e n i n g i s 
t h e 
p o i n t a t which t h e f e t u s b e g i n s 
d i s c e r n i b l y t o 
move i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f 
t h e 
mother 
and 
the p o i n t t h a t has h i s t o r i c a l l y been deemed c r u c i a l 
-- t o t h e e x t e n t any p o i n t between c o n c e p t i o n and 
b i r t h has 
been f o c u s e d on.) But 
no, i t i s v i a b i l i t y 
t h a t 
i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y 
c r i t i c a l : 
t h e C o u r t ' s 
defense 
seems 
t o m i s t a k e 
a 
d e f i n i t i o n 
f o r a 
s y l l o g i s m . 
"'With r e s p e c t t o 
t h e 
S t a t e ' s i m p o r t a n t and 
l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n 
p o t e n t i a l 
l i f e , t h e 
' c o m p e l l i n g ' p o i n t i s 
a t v i a b i l i t y . 
T h i s 
i s so 
because t h e f e t u s then presumably 
has 
the c a p a b i l i t y o f m e a n i n g f u l 
l i f e 
o u t s i d e 
the mother's womb.' 
"With r e g a r d t o 
why t h e 
s t a t e cannot c o n s i d e r 
t h i s 
' i m p o r t a n t 
and 
l e g i t i m a t e 
i n t e r e s t ' 
p r i o r 
t o 
v i a b i l i t y , t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
even l e s s 
s a t i s f a c t o r y . " 
John H a r t E l y , The 
Wages o f C r y i n g Wolf: A Comment on Roe 
v. 
Wade, 82 Y a l e L . J . 920, 
924-25 (1973) ( q u o t i n g Roe, 410 
U.S. 
at 163) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 
N e i t h e r Roe n o r 
any o f t h e subsequent cases 
r e l y i n g on 
the v i a b i l i t y s t a n d a r d have p r o v i d e d any 
a l t e r n a t i v e r a t i o n a l e 
t o 
s u p p o r t 
t h a t s t a n d a r d : 
" I n 
t h e decades s i n c e Roe, t h e 
C o u r t has o f f e r e d no adequate 
r a t i o n a l e f o r 
t h e v i a b i l i t y 
s t a n d a r d , 
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g p e r s i s t e n t j u d i c i a l and academic 
c r i t i q u e s . " 
Beck, 75 UMKC L. Rev. 
a t 740. 
Because o f Roe, v i a b i l i t y , 
i n a b o r t i o n law, i s a 
l i m i t a t i o n 
on t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e s t a t e ' s 
i n t e r e s t i n 
p r o t e c t i n g t h e 
unborn c h i l d . 
O u t s i d e a b o r t i o n law, 
v i a b i l i t y 
42 
1100192 
has 
l i t t l e 
s i g n i f i c a n c e . 
V i a b i l i t y 
i s 
l a r g e l y based 
on 
outcome s t a t i s t i c s a t a s p e c i f i c g e s t a t i o n a l age, c o u p l e d w i t h 
an 
e s t i m a t i o n 
of 
the 
t e c h n o l o g i c a l 
c a p a b i l i t i e s 
of 
a 
p a r t i c u l a r f a c i l i t y i n m e d i c a l l y a s s i s t i n g 
premature c h i l d r e n . 
As 
the South Dakota Supreme C o u r t s a i d i n Wiersma v. Maple  
L e a f Farms, 543 N.W.2d 787, 
792 
(S.D. 1996), " ' [ v ] i a b i l i t y ' 
as 
a d e v e l o p m e n t a l t u r n i n g p o i n t was embraced i n a b o r t i o n cases 
t o b a l a n c e the p r i v a c y r i g h t s of a mother a g a i n s t her unborn 
c h i l d . 
For 
any 
o t h e r 
purpose, 
v i a b i l i t y 
i s 
p u r e l y 
an 
a r b i t r a r y 
m i l e s t o n e 
from w h i c h 
t o 
r e c k o n 
a 
c h i l d ' s l e g a l 
e x i s t e n c e . " 
(Footnote o m i t t e d . ) 
V i a b i l i t y i s i r r e l e v a n t t o d e t e r m i n i n g 
the e x i s t e n c e 
of 
p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s , 
the 
e x t e n t 
of p r e n a t a l 
i n j u r i e s , 
or 
the 
cause of p r e n a t a l d e a t h . 
V i a b i l i t y i s i r r e l e v a n t t o p r o v i n g 
c a u s a t i o n because the unborn c h i l d ' s anatomic c o n d i t i o n can 
be 
o b s e r v e d 
r e g a r d l e s s 
of 
v i a b i l i t y 
and, 
i f the unborn 
c h i l d 
d i e s , 
the cause of 
i t s d e a t h can 
be 
d e t e r m i n e d by 
a u t o p s y 
r e g a r d l e s s of the c h i l d ' s g e s t a t i o n a l age. 
V i a b i l i t y does not 
a f f e c t the c h i l d ' s l o s s of l i f e or the damages s u f f e r e d by 
the 
s u r v i v i n g 
f a m i l y . 
There 
i s 
no 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
p e r m i t t i n g 
r e c o v e r y 
of damages f o r the w r o n g f u l d e a t h of a c h i l d 
b e f o r e 
43 
1100192 
v i a b i l i t y w i l l i n c r e a s e f r a u d u l e n t l i t i g a t i o n . 
See 66 F e d e r a l  
C r e d i t Union v. Tucker, 853 So. 2d 104, 113 
( M i s s . 2003). 
Q u i t e 
s i m p l y , the use 
of 
v i a b i l i t y 
as 
a s t a n d a r d i n 
p r e n a t a l - i n j u r y or w r o n g f u l - d e a t h law i s i n c o h e r e n t . 
As the 
West V i r g i n i a Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d i n F a r l e y : " [ J ] u s t i c e i s 
d e n i e d when a 
t o r t f e a s o r 
i s p e r m i t t e d t o walk 
away w i t h 
i m p u n i t y because of the happenstance t h a t the unborn c h i l d had 
not y e t r e a c h e d v i a b i l i t y a t the time of d e a t h . " 
466 S.E.2d 
a t 533. 
Though a number of r a t i o n a l e s were o r i g i n a l l y 
c i t e d 
f o r the v i a b i l i t y 
r u l e i n p r e n a t a l - i n j u r y or w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
law, 
the 
s o l e 
r e m a i n i n g 
j u s t i f i c a t i o n 
of 
not 
abandoning 
v i a b i l i t y 
i n w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
law seems t o be 
d e f e r e n c e 
t o 
l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s , a r a t h e r s t r a n g e r a t i o n a l e f o r c a u t i o n i n 
abandoning 
a j u d i c i a l l y c r e a t e d r u l e . 
S i n c e Roe was 
d e c i d e d i n 1973, advances i n m e d i c a l 
and 
s c i e n t i f i c t e c h n o l o g y have g r e a t l y expanded our knowledge of 
p r e n a t a l 
l i f e . 
The development of u l t r a s o u n d t e c h n o l o g y has 
enhanced m e d i c a l 
and 
p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g , 
a l l o w i n g us 
t o 
watch the growth and development of the unborn c h i l d i n a way 
p r e v i o u s g e n e r a t i o n s c o u l d never have i m a g i n e d . 
S i m i l a r l y , 
advances i n g e n e t i c s and r e l a t e d f i e l d s make c l e a r t h a t a new 
and unique human b e i n g i s formed a t the moment of c o n c e p t i o n , 
44 
1100192 
when two c e l l s , 
i n c a p a b l e o f independent l i f e , merge t o form 
a s i n g l e , i n d i v i d u a l human e n t i t y .
1 9 
Of c o u r s e , t h a t new 
l i f e 
i s n o t y e t mature -- growth and development a r e 
n e c e s s a r y 
b e f o r e 
t h a t 
l i f e 
can s u r v i v e 
i n d e p e n d e n t l y 
-- b u t i t i s 
n o n e t h e l e s s 
human 
l i f e . 
And t h e r e has been a b r o a d 
l e g a l 
consensus i n A m e r i c a , even b e f o r e Roe, t h a t t h e l i f e o f a 
1 9See, e.g., Bruce M. 
C a r l s o n , 
Human 
Embryology and  
Developmental B i o l o g y 3 (1994) ("Human pregnancy b e g i n s 
w i t h 
the f u s i o n o f an egg and a sperm 
. . . . " ) ; Ronan O ' R a h i l l y & 
F a b i o l a M u l l e r , Human Embryology and T e r a t o l o g y 8 (2d 
ed. 
1996) 
("Although l i f e i s 
a c o n t i n u o u s 
p r o c e s s , 
f e r t i l i z a t i o n 
i s a c r i t i c a l landmark because, under o r d i n a r y 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 
a new, g e n e t i c a l l y d i s t i n c t human o r g a n i s m i s 
t h e r e b y formed. 
T h i s remains t r u e even though t h e embryonic genome i s 
not 
a c t u a l l y a c t i v a t e d u n t i l 4-8 c e l l s a r e p r e s e n t , a t about 2-3 
d a y s . " ) ; 
K e i t h 
Moore, 
The 
D e v e l o p i n g 
Human: 
C l i n i c a l l y 
 
O r i e n t e d Embryology 2 (8th ed. 2008) (The zygote " r e s u l t s from 
the u n i o n o f an o o c y t e and a sperm d u r i n g 
f e r t i l i z a t i o n . 
A 
z y g o t e o r embryo i s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a new human b e i n g . " ) ; 
E r n e s t B l e c h s c h m i d t , The B e g i n n i n g o f Human L i f e 16-17 (1977) 
("A human ovum p o s s e s s e s human 
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as g e n e t i c 
c a r r i e r s , n o t c h i c k e n o r f i s h . 
T h i s i s now m a n i f e s t ; t h e 
e v i d e n c e no l o n g e r a l l o w s a d i s c u s s i o n as t o i f 
and when and 
i n what month o f o n t o g e n e s i s a human b e i n g i s formed. 
To be 
a human b e i n g i s d e c i d e d f o r 
an o r g a n i s m a t t h e moment o f 
f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e ovum."); C.E. C o r l i s s , 
P a t t e n ' s 
Human 
 
Embryology: Elements o f C l i n i c a l Development 30 (1976) ("It 
i s 
the 
p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e ovum by a sperm and t h e r e s u l t a n t 
m i n g l i n g o f t h e 
n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l each b r i n g s t o 
t h e 
u n i o n t h a t 
c o n s t i t u t e s t h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e s s o f 
f e r t i l i z a t i o n 
and marks t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f t h e l i f e o f a new i n d i v i d u a l . " ) ; 
and 
C l i n i c a l 
O b s t e t r i c s 11 
( C a r l J . P a u e r s t e i n ed. 1987) 
("Each member o f a s p e c i e s b e g i n s 
w i t h 
f e r t i l i z a t i o n -- t h e 
s u c c e s s f u l 
merging 
o f two 
d i f f e r e n t 
p o o l s 
o f 
g e n e t i c 
i n f o r m a t i o n t o form a new i n d i v i d u a l . " ) . 
45 
1100192 
human b e i n g b e g i n s a t c o n c e p t i o n .
2 0 
An unborn c h i l d i s a 
unique and i n d i v i d u a l 
human 
b e i n g 
from 
c o n c e p t i o n , and, 
t h e r e f o r e , he o r she i s 
e n t i t l e d t o 
t h e f u l l p r o t e c t i o n o f 
law 
at e v e r y s t a g e o f development. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Roe's v i a b i l i t y r u l e was based on i n a c c u r a t e h i s t o r y and 
was m o s t l y u n s u p p o r t e d by l e g a l p r e c e d e n t . 
M e d i c a l advances 
s i n c e Roe have c o n c l u s i v e l y 
d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t an unborn 
c h i l d 
i s a unique human b e i n g a t e v e r y s t a g e o f development. 
And 
t o g e t h e r , Alabama's h o m i c i d e 
s t a t u t e , t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s 
C o u r t , and t h e s t a t u t e s and j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s from 
o t h e r 
s t a t e s make a b u n d a n t l y 
c l e a r t h a t t h e law i s no l o n g e r , i n 
J u s t i c e 
Blackmun's words, 
" r e l u c t a n t ... t o a c c o r d 
l e g a l 
r i g h t s t o t h e unborn." 
For t h e s e 
r e a s o n s , Roe's v i a b i l i t y 
r u l e i s 
n e i t h e r c o n t r o l l i n g nor p e r s u a s i v e here and s h o u l d be 
2 0See P a u l Benjamin L i n t o n , P l a n n e d Parenthood v. C a s e y ^ 
The 
F l i g h t From Reason i n 
t h e Supreme C o u r t , 13 S t . L o u i s U. 
Pub. 
L. Rev. 15, 120-137 
(1993) 
("Appendix B: The 
L e g a l 
Consensus on t h e B e g i n n i n g 
o f L i f e , " 
c i t i n g 
caselaw and 
s t a t u t e s from 38 s t a t e s and t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia 
s t a t i n g 
t h a t t h e l i f e o f a human b e i n g s h o u l d be p r o t e c t e d b e g i n n i n g 
w i t h c o n c e p t i o n ) . 
46 
1100192 
r e j e c t e d by o t h e r s t a t e s u n t i l t h e day i t 
i s o v e r r u l e d by the 
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . 
S t u a r t , B o l i n , and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
47