Albala v. City of New York, 54 N.Y.2d 269 (1981)
A tort committed against a mother before a child’s conception does not give rise to a cause of action in favor of the child if that tort caused injury to the child during gestation; foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish a duty of care to a child conceived after a negligent act.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a child does not have a cause of action for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of a tort committed against the mother before the child’s conception. The court reasoned that recognizing such a cause of action would extend tort liability beyond manageable limits and lead to undesirable policy consequences, such as defensive medicine. The court emphasized that foreseeability alone is not the determining factor in establishing a legal duty. The court balanced the need to provide remedies for injuries with the need to avoid artificial and arbitrary boundaries of liability.
Facts
In 1971, Ruth Albala underwent an abortion at Bellevue Hospital, during which her uterus was perforated due to alleged medical malpractice. In 1975, Ruth conceived Jeffrey Albala. Jeffrey was born in 1976 with a damaged brain. Jeffrey’s lawsuit alleged his brain damage was a direct result of the negligent perforation of his mother’s uterus during the abortion performed years prior to his conception.
Procedural History
Jeffrey Albala commenced an action in 1978, claiming damages for brain damage allegedly caused by the 1971 malpractice on his mother. The Supreme Court, Special Term, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that no cause of action exists for a preconception tort under New York law. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a tort committed against the mother of a child before conception gives rise to a cause of action in favor of the child if the tort allegedly caused injury to the child during gestation.
Holding
No, because extending liability to preconception torts would require extending traditional tort concepts beyond manageable bounds and lead to undesirable policy consequences.
Court’s Reasoning
The court declined to recognize a cause of action for preconception torts. The court distinguished this case from Woods v. Lancet, where a child was allowed to sue for prenatal injuries, because in that case, the child existed in utero at the time of the tort. The court noted that foreseeability alone is not sufficient to establish a duty of care. Quoting Tobin v. Grossman, the court stated, “foreseeability alone is not the hallmark of legal duty for if foreseeability were the sole test we could not logically confine the extension of liability”. The court expressed concern that recognizing such a cause of action would open the door to unlimited hypotheses and staggering implications, creating perimeters of liability that cannot be judicially established in a reasonable and practical manner. The court also raised concerns about encouraging “defensive medicine,” where physicians might avoid potentially life-saving treatments to avoid liability for potential harm to future offspring. The court acknowledged the desire to provide relief to those who have suffered but emphasized that the law cannot provide a remedy for every injury. The Court distinguished Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Labs, a products liability case, noting that strict liability without fault eliminates the need to establish manageable bounds for liability.