Court Opinion

ID: 9646119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:49:30.783069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:34.393522
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The principal opinion would exonerate a physician guilty of gross negligence, or even an intentional wrong, and preclude and foreclose an action for wrongful life or wrongful birth. The conclusions concerning causation and assessment of damages ignore the fact that both common law and statutory law have demonstrated, time and time again, that these “reasons” are not sound; further, respectable courts in other *749jurisdictions have demonstrated these shibboleths are not insurmountable. A person may very well be faced with a difficult standard of proof, but our system of justice should at least afford one an opportunity to present evidence of injury, causation and damages.
The principal opinion ignores the equal protection, due process, open courts, and trial by jury provisions of the Constitution of Missouri, as well as similar constitutional guarantees found in the United States Constitution. This State’s guarantees are:
"... that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunities under the law....”

Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 2

“That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 10

“That the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”

Mo. Const. Art. 1, § U

“That the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate....”

Mo. Const. Art. 1, § 22(a)

The open courts provision provides a forum for plaintiffs, as persons allegedly wronged by defendant, to present evidence to a jury in support of their allegations, rather than be barred from the courthouse where others are permitted to present their claims. Perceived difficulty of proof should not override constitutional guarantees.
The emotional and controversial issue of abortion should not control or influence the decision in this case. Neither should the enactment of so-called “tort reform” legislation — the constitutionality of which must await another day.
I would hold the common law governs this case and reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action; alternatively, that § 188.130, RSMo 1986, violates the Constitution of Missouri.