Brief Fact Summary. A woman underwent a dilatation and curettage (D&C) at her doctor’s suggestion, after he misdiagnosed her as not pregnant. Several weeks later, it was discovered she was pregnant, and that the D&C may have caused serious harm to the fetus. The woman feared for her unborn baby’s health, and she suffered extreme depression and stress and brought suit against the doctor and the hospital.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A woman who delivers a healthy baby can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon fearing for the well-being of her baby if the alleged negligence of defendants had placed the baby in real danger.
To support a finding of passion or prejudice, it must be demonstrated that the jury's assessment of the damages was so overwhelmingly disproportionate as to shock reasonable sensibilities.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Can a woman who delivers a healthy baby recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon fearing for the well-being of her baby if the alleged negligence of defendants had placed the baby in real danger?
Held. (Per curiam) Yes. A woman who delivers a healthy baby can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon fearing for the well-being of her baby if the alleged negligence of defendants had placed the baby in real danger. Regardless if actual injury occurred, Plaintiff’s baby had been subjected to real physical peril by the D&C, so in this case the peril existed. Plaintiff’s emotional distress was the result of a very real risk of injury to a seven-week-old fetus that was subjected to a procedure equivalent to an abortion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Discussion. The fact that Plaintiff delivered a healthy baby does not mean that the “peril” did not exist; it only means there was no actual injury as a result of the negligence. Note that damages cannot be recovered for psychological harm and emotional injuries that arise from fear of a “non-existent peril.” The peril existed because negligence created the threat of actual and physical bodily harm to the unborn fetus. Plaintiff’s emotional distress was caused by the peril and, therefore, it also was caused by the negligence.