Business Law Case Brief

Statement of Facts: On 8 May 2015 David Smith drove his car through a red light. Afterwards, he then plowed into Ms. John Doe’s car, mangling it beyond repair. Fortunately, Ms. Doe escaped with minor scratches and bruises, even though she was seven and one-half months pregnant. Four days later she delivered a stillborn infant. The operating physicians concluded the unborn baby had died from injuries sustained in the accident. Ms. Doe had seen Dr. Horace Mann at her regularly scheduled check-up approximately two weeks before the accident. His records show Ms. Doe was in good health and the child’s condition was “normal” for one conceived about seven months earlier. Dr. Mann thinks the baby was probably capable of a separate existence outside the womb.
Question Presented: Is the Defendant liable to the plaintiff for the tort of wrongful death of the plaintiff’s child when the defendant negligently operated his vehicle and struck his vehicle onto the plaintiff resulting in the death of her child even though the child was a fetus at the time of the accident.
Conclusion: The plaintiff’s motion to recover damages for the wrongful death of her child would be denied. Under case 370 Md. 227, 804 A.2d 1151 in a similar suit as to the one we are doing the plaintiff was not able to recover for the loss of her child as a result of a car
accident but was able to recover for damages related to the loss of pregnancy. Similiarily under Md statute Maryland Code § 3-902 I have interpreted the statute of wrongful death to contain that there must have been intent which will be hard to prove in this case. Under these trying circumstances I do not recommend the law firm to proceed with this case for the recovery of damages under the tort of wrongful death. However, we can proceed with other recovery methods for various torts with regard to our client losing her child as a result of the car accident by negligent driving under Maryland Code § 21-901.1
Applicable Cases: 370 Md. 227, 804 A.2d 1151. Pregnant woman who sustains personal injury as the result of a defendant's tortious conduct and who, as part of that injury, suffers the loss of the fetus may recover, in her own action for personal injuries, for any demonstrable emotional distress that accompanies and is attributable to the loss of the fetus.
Applicable Statutes: Maryland Code § 3-902 If the fetus is viable at the time of death or is ever born alive, it is regarded as another person and some redress for its death pecuniary losses, if any, and damages for loss of filial consortium as defined in the wrongful death statute.
Applicable Statutes: Maryland Code § 21-901.1 A person is guilty of reckless driving if he/she drives a motor vehicle in wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property; or in a manner that indicates a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Discussion: Under the facts presented it is impossible to assume that our client wrongful death tort would be successful.
While a tragic loss of life we will have an extremely hard time proving that our client’s death of her child was a direct result of the accident if she did not go to the hospital right after the accident. Anything within those four days could have happened during the pregnancy that the defendant could argue was not a result of the car accident. In addition the operating physicians are not under legal authority to say that definitely that the fetus could was stillborn as a cause of injuries resulting from the
accident. Maryland case 370 Md. 227, 804 A.2d 1151 gives us a good guideline to follow as it can set legal precedent for our case. Our law firm stands a great chance to helping our client succeed in recovering for damages related to the accident. Some of the torts that we can pursue would be pain and suffering for the physical underlining damage that her body went through as a result of the pregnancy. A great example would be the changes her body went through as a result of the accident that resulted in a stillborn. Another tort we can pursue would be severe emotional distress and we can argue that our client’s mental makeup will never be the same again as a result of having to go through the experience of delivering a child that was already dead. I believe we can successfully argue that the defendant robbed our client of the opportunity to ever want to have a child(ren) again. In addition our client can recover damages for pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. The reason why we have a good chance to be successful for the tort of non-pecuniary loss would be that it will be impossible for one to put a monetary value on the loss of a pregnancy. Pecuniary loss would also be successful because the jury would be able to put a monetary loss on items that our client bought as a result of the pregnancy and impending fetus. Also we can put a loss on doctor’s visits and other medical treatments before, during and after the accident. Under Maryland Code § 3-902 we will be able to recover damages for our client under the claim that our client’s fetus was viable. One can reasonably that our client’s doctor was of legal authority to say that the fetus was viable. Our client could recover for damages for lack of quality of life for the fetus. While it may be a stretch we could argue that since the fetus was viable and if the fetus death can be attributed only to the accident we can argue that the trauma that concurred as a result of the accident was so great that the fetus died as a result. For this tort to work however we must argue that the fetus was not in fact a fetus but in actuality a child that was capable of living an independent quality of life. Our client can possibly recover damages for negligent driving as a result of the defendant’s actions. Maryland Code § 21-901.1 defines negligent or reckless driving as wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property and it is my opinion that we can argue that the defendant’s actions is in compliance in such a manner. If there was no immediate or underlining cause of the accident or was a factor in the defendant driving through a red light then one can assume that he was careless in such a manner that constitutes negligent/reckless driving. Through this tort we can recover for damages to the car and in addition for physical damages now and for the foreseeable future that is not present now but can potentially be in the future such as physical injuries or medical injuries e.g. not able to have children