>From what I understand, mother told her employer she was pregnant, and the employer told the mother that chemicals used at the workplace would not harm the child. The child is now 22, and the mother's claims have been ruled time-barred. The child has severe birth defects. This may not be that different, as you say, except that I am thinking that misrepresentation as requires scienter and reliance, while negligence does not, and here, the mother's reliance is not at issue if her claim is barred. So it seems the court has to at least recognize the possibility the defendant could intend that an unborn child would be induced, and that the unborn child itself could be induced to rely on the representations.
-----Original Message----- From: Ilya Somin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Does this case have bearing on abortion? Was the child not yet born at the time of the misrepresentations, or also at the time of the lawsuit? If it's just the former, it's not much different from the fairly common type of lawsuit where children sue doctors for malpractice that occurred when the child was still a fetus in the womb (I'm assuming, of course, that the employer's misrepresentations related to matters material to the child's interests). On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Gregg Miller wrote: > The NY Appellate division ruled a child not yet born can sue for > misrepresentations made to her mother by her mother's employer. I wonder if > this is going to have an effect on the rights of the unborn. > > http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticle&t=PrinterFriendlyArt > icle&cid=1063212087448 > > Gregg P. Miller > Academic Support Tutor > Thomas Jefferson School of Law > 2121 San DIego Avenue > San DIego, CA 92110 > (619) 297-9700 ext. 1408 >
