Texas PI Lawyer, if the mother was the injured party, this was not clear to me from the article and I'm glad you posted to clarify things. And I admit I lack your legal knowledge. I read "Should the girl have the right to sue the city for her injuries?" and took it literally. I was hoping a lawyer would post.

djm: If anything, this is a good argument FOR abortion. If the mother had known the fetus was damaged, she could have had an abortion and prevented the birth of a girl with learning disabilities.

man: it's a good point because people with learning disabilities have little or no value and should be exterminated before taking their first breath - if only the mother knew!

You miss the point. Until sometime after birth there is no "people" present. To use religious terminology, a fetus is purely flesh, it has no spirit. It has no mind. The mind begins to develop at birth. Before birth, there is no "person" to kill, just spiritless flesh. A fetus that is damaged should be terminated before it develops into a damaged person.

The whole anti-abortion argument is based on the lie that a mindless, spiritless fetus is a person.

Born people have rights. If something causes damage to a born person before she was born, it affects her after she was born -- thus, she has standing to sue.

Aborted fetuses will never be born people, and therefore, will never have rights to sue regarding anything that might have happened prenatally.

From the column: "The appeals panel said that if the injuries occurred after the child was conceived and if she were born alive, she had the right to sue -- thus denying the city's lawyers' claim that the child would have had to be able to survive outside of the womb at the time of the injury in order to qualify for damages."

If I am reading this correctly, this ruling says that the -girl- has the right to sue. Thus, it seems to me that the case is about the girl suing the city for injuries done to her, not the mother suing the city for injuries done to her.

Even the city lawyers are treating this as the child suing the city - the parents are only suing on her behalf, probably do to being her guardians, but that's just a guess.

So, I believe, unfortunately, that your point may be erroneous. If this was a strict prenatal case, I don't think it would be an issue. But even the original article notes that this ruling is "unprecedented". The judges even worded their decision with the abortion idea firmly in mind - they are giving legal representation to a plaintiff that was unborn at the time of incident.

You people need to go to law school ( on in some cases perhaps you'd better hope you never have to go to law school, because you won't make it very far). This case is 1) very easy; and 2) doesn't even tangentially touch on the issue or choice.

The alleged injury in question is to the mother. The alleged injury to the mother caused her to have a child with developmental defects. Therefore the parents are suing (as next friends of the child) to recover for the foreseeable harm that has been visited on the then fetus/now child by the city as a result of the injury to the mother. To my knowledge, this prenatal injury rule is the law in every state of the union.

From toilet collapse to asthma! Wow

So, the decision from 2005 was overturned, meaning maybe an additional year in court prior to that. Exactly how long has this been in litigation?

I guess my question is (given the above timeline modifications), why did it take five years for them to decide to sue? Or even four? Why didn't they just sue at onset for causing premature birth? Though it doesn't necessarily led to longterm problems, prematurity carries a whole slew of medical expenses that (if the doctors are correct) could have been avoided by the incident not occurring.

I'm very ignorant in the ways of suits like this, so you'll have to pardon my questions if they offend.

Further question is how you prove negligence in a situation like this. True, the collapse and its repercussions were tragic, but how does all of that add up to suing the city? Where's the line between criminal negligence and something just being unfortunate? Plus, how do doctors determine which things are attributable to this incident and which ones aren't?

"Taken to Orwellian proportions, this could mean mothers being held legally responsible for their children’s health problems if they had a history of drug use, chronic illnesses, or any number of health factors. Women could even be denied the right to childbirth based on their health. I’m not claiming any of this will happen. But from a legal standpoint, the court’s decision is dangerous, and in my opinion, it puts women’s rights in jeopardy."

Umm...am I the only one who fails to see the horror in the above scenario? I happen to believe that a woman has the right to snort as much coke and shoot as much meth as she wants, but she does not under any circumstance have the right to condemn another human being to a life of deformity as a result, just as a smoker does not have the right to breathe into my face. Childbirth cannot solely be defined as a natural right because it will eventually involve and affect another sentient being. Abortion, on the other hand, will never involve a sentient being in any scientific sense of the term (someone who has a developed brain, consciousness and the ability to feel pain, and can exist independently).

Actually, I was pretty impressed with the judges' ruling and the phrasing of their argument. Such sanity is rare in these days.

This isn't about abortion. In fact, the fetus itself wasn't injured--the placenta was. (Should we consider that organ part of the fetus or part of the mother? You could make a good case either way.)

1. Can they prove that this little girl's problems are due to her premature birth?

2. Can they prove that her premature birth was caused by the ruptured placenta?

3. Can they prove that the ruptured placenta was caused by the collapse of the toilet in the public school?

4. Can they prove that the school district knew about or should reasonably have known that the toilet was going to collapse?

If the answer is yes to all four, why shouldn't the parents have a case?