Court Opinion

ID: 9739739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:20:16.062249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.685452
License: Public Domain

Lanphier, J.,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Justice White except to the extent that Tina Andreasen could be considered a bystander. As a mother giving birth, she was a participant and not a bystander throughout the delivery. See Westcott v. Mikkelson, 148 Wis. 2d 239, 434 N.W.2d 822 (Wis. App. 1988), and Haught v. Maceluch, 681 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1982), which contemplate the nature of the relationship of a mother giving birth to her child. As stated in Haught v. Maceluch, 681 F.2d at 299:
Not only was appellant located near the scene of the accident, she was in some sense the scene itself. Dr. Maceluch’s negligent conduct was visited upon her and upon the child within her body; no closer proximity can be imagined. . . . [A]s a mother and child in childbirth their relationship was unitary.
In Westcott v. Mikkelson, supra, plaintiff mother sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress sustained during the delivery of her son, who was asphyxiated as a result of a wrapped umbilical cord. The court stated that “it is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut example of [a participant] than a mother giving birth to a child in distress.” Id. at 242, 434 N.W.2d at 823.
In the present case, Tina, as a mother giving birth to her child, was an integral part of the procedure. She should not be relegated to the position of a bystander.
White, J., joins in this dissent.