Opinion ID: 1839071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Was this result foreseeable?

Text: The parties agree that some type of foreseeability analysis must be used. They, however, reach different conclusions. In a negligence case, the standard for determining whether the actor should have foreseen the probability of harm from his conduct is an external one, from the point of view of the actor 262 (S.D.Miss. 1967), aff'd 394 F.2d 482 (5th Cir.1968) (quoting Sturdivant v. Crosby Lumber & Mfg. Co., 218 Miss. 91, 65 So.2d 291 (Miss. 1953)). [8] With this in mind, Catholic Charities points to the evidence which shows that PKU is a rare disease [9] occurring once in every 10-12,000 Caucasian deliveries. Catholic Charities was unaware of any positive PKU test upon any children it had placed in the past. Dr. Seashore [10] estimated that only three or four children are born each year with PKU in Connecticut where she practices. In addition to the rarity of the disease, the fact that it is inherited through recessive genes, and it does not manifest itself in the natural parents (i.e., no symptoms or indications of disease) decreases what little foreseeability there may be. Moreover, even when the child is born there are still no physical indications of the disease. The developmental delays are four to six months after birth. Prior to that time, however, the children appear perfectly normal. The uncontradicted evidence established that Catholic Charities had no reason to know Geoffrey had PKU or any knowledge [11] or experience giving it cause to inquire about a test for the disease. They could not give any type of medical examination because there were no doctors on its staff. This does not mean, however, that Geoffrey received no medical attention. He was born at the University Hospital. Dr. Bass was his attending physician, and the members of the medical team assisted him. Geoffrey remained at the hospital for six days, and the Fosters picked him up from there. [12] When the Fosters received custody of Geoffrey, it was their responsibility to take him to a pediatrician. Catholic Charities' adoption procedures required this. In addition, the Fosters were required to provide suitable care and other necessities for Geoffrey during the time prior to Geoffrey's legal adoption, and they agreed to assume all costs for medicine and medical treatment. Finally, on this point, it cannot be overemphasized, as a part of the adoption procedures, Catholic Charities required the Fosters to obtain certification from their own pediatrician that Geoffrey was in good health.