Court Opinion

ID: 9569436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:13:46.752628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:57:55.555287
License: Public Domain

Benham, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
In 1990, I was compelled to dissent to this Court’s decision in Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v. Abelson, 260 Ga. 711 (398 SE2d 557) (1990), because I believed the decision that the courts of this State would not recognize a cause of action for wrongful birth was wrong. Because I believe that the majority opinion in this case perpetuates that mistake, I am obliged to dissent again.
I believe now, as I asserted then, that “a cause of action [for wrongful birth] exists within the framework of our traditional law of torts.” Id. at 723. In the interim since Abelson, I have not come to doubt that position, but I have modified my position on damages somewhat. In my dissent in Abelson, I stated my belief that “the extraordinary expenses of raising the child are recoverable,” but I have since come to agree with the damages approach taken by the *360State of Missouri in Shelton v. St. Anthony’s Medical Center, 781 SW2d 48 (Mo. 1989). There, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that while there could be no claim based on an allegation that but for the negligent conduct of another, a child would have been aborted, parents who allege negligence in that a physician failed to inform them sufficiently to enable them to make a judgment and give informed consent with respect to treatment could state a claim for damages such as “loss of consortium, the right to lead a normal life; . . . emotional distress, anxiety and depression.” This State should likewise recognize the viability of such a cause of action.
Decided July 6, 1999
Reconsideration denied July 30, 1999.
Myles E. Eastwood, for appellants.
Alston & Bird, Judson Graves, Sterling G. Culpepper, for appellees.
Gerald R. Weber, Jr., David S. Bills, William Q. Bird, David Wm. Boone, Finch, McCranie, Brown, Hendrix & Sullivan, Ellis R. Brown, Love & Willingham, Allen S. Willingham, Traci G. Courville, Vicki M. Miller, Allen & Peters, Jonathan C. Peters, David A. Cook, James E. Carter, Cathey & Strain, Dennis T. Cathey, Edward E. Strain III, Cook & Connelly, Bobby Lee Cook, Cook, Noell, Tolley, Bates & Michael, J. Vincent Cook, Dehler & Griffin, Mark F. Dehler, Doffermyre, Shields, Canfield, Knowles & Devine, Ralph I. Knowles, Foy R. Devine, Edenfield, Cox & Classens, Gerald M. Edenfield, O. Wayne *361Ellerbee, Robert K. Finnell, Davis, Gregory, Christy & Forehand, Hardy Gregory, Jr., Williams & Henry, Philip C. Henry, Johnson & Ward, William C. Lanham, Clark H. McGehee, Ashman, Lasky & Cooper, Jeffrey W. Lasky, Thomas W. Malone, Mark L. Stuckey, Reynolds & McArthur, W. Carl Reynolds, Savage, Herndon & Turner, Brent J. Savage, Stephens & Shuler, Charles W. Stephens, Gambrell & Stolz, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Walbert & Mathis, David F. Walbert, Wood & Grant, L. Lin Wood, Jr., amici curiae.
*360Stare decisis is not a valid excuse for declining to recognize wrongful birth as a tort to be considered under the same rules as traditional torts.
The rule of stare decisis is a wholesome one, but should not be used to sanctify and perpetuate error. . . . We deprecate and distrust rash innovation as much as the most conservative magistrates ought, but it has never been the doctrine of any court of last resort that the law is to be a refuge and safe asylum for all the errors that creep into it. . . . Courts, like individuals, but with more caution and deliberation, must sometimes reconsider what has been already carefully considered, and rectify their own mistakes. If this is to be done in any case, it would seem to be a case like the present. . . .
City of Atlanta v. First Presbyterian Church, 86 Ga. 730, 732-733 (13 SE 252) (1891). I remain convinced that this Court was in error in Abelson, and I believe that mistake should be rectified in this case. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.