Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson

Last updated
Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: December 8, 1998
Judgment: July 9, 1999
Full case nameCynthia Dobson v. Ryan Leigh MacLean Dobson by his Litigation Guardian, Gerald M. Price
Citations [1999] 2 SCR 753; 1999 CanLII 698 (SCC); (1999), 214 NBR (2d) 201; (1999), 174 DLR (4th) 1
Prior historyJudgment for the Ryan Leigh MacLean Dobson in the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick.
Holding
Action cannot be brought against a mother by a child for fetal damages caused by the mother's negligence.
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie
Reasons given
MajorityCory J, joined by Lamer CJ, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Binnie JJ
ConcurrenceMcLachlin
DissentMajor, joined by Bastarache

Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson, [1999] 2 SCR 753 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on a pregnant woman's legal duties in tort law. It was the first time the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider this issue. [1] The majority of the Court found that tort claims cannot be brought against women for negligence toward the fetus during pregnancy.

Contents

The case involved one Cynthia Dobson, who in 1993 was driving and got into a car accident in bad weather. Her fetus was supposedly damaged in the accident and was delivered by Caesarean section on the day of the crash, before the expected due date. The child had cerebral palsy. On behalf of the child, his maternal grandfather brought a tort claim against the mother for negligence in driving in order to benefit from the father's insurance policy, which covered damages caused by the negligence of drivers of his motor vehicle.

Decision

The majority decision was written by Peter Cory, who began by emphasizing the uniqueness and importance of pregnancy, saying it "speaks of the mystery of birth and life" and that "the relationship between a pregnant woman and her foetus is unique and innately recognized as one of great and special importance to society." He noted it was usually the case that women care for their fetus, before he turned to address negligence. [2]

Cory noted that the only issue before the Supreme Court was whether such a tort claim could be made: is a pregnant woman liable for negligence? He then turned to cases in which children actually did make successful tort claims for fetal injuries. These included Montreal Tramways Co v Léveillé (1933), in which a child successfully sued for club feet, and the Court had said that otherwise there would be no way to achieve justice for the child. However, in 1999 Cory noted that the action in the earlier case was not against the mother, which was a more "sensitive issue." [3]

The Court then cited Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen (1984) to say the "duty of care" that a mother has for a child is not forced on the mother by courts through public policy. Only a legislature can consider such an issue. Following Kamloops, the Court said a duty of care is recognized if the involved people are closely related, and if the issue does not raise questions about public policy. While fetuses and their mothers have often legally been seen as one person, for the purposes of this case the Court addressed the issue as if they were two people. This satisfied the requirement that the involved people, namely Cynthia Dobson and her fetus, were closely related. As the Court noted, "almost any careless act or omission by a pregnant woman could be expected to have a detrimental impact on foetal development." [4] However, the issue raised questions of public policy; it implicated privacy rights of a pregnant woman and her bodily control. [5] In this sense, it involved consideration that pregnancy may be the "human condition" most "important to society" as it preserves the human race. Moreover, pregnancy symbolizes "fertility and hope." Cory cautioned, however, that despite all this, a woman remains a person with rights. [6] The issue of a pregnant woman's responsibilities ran deep, deeper than that of another person who could be sued for causing damage to someone else's fetus. The pregnant woman's relevant activities would include what "the pregnant woman eats or drinks, and every physical action she takes" and this involves "every waking and sleeping moment, in essence, her entire existence." [7] Whereas a mother has emotional responsibilities for a fetus, adding a tort dimension to this would seriously alter it. [8]

Turning to other countries, Cory found that in the United Kingdom the Parliament had enacted a law granting tort immunity to pregnant women for fetal damages. The only responsibilities were minor ones concerning negligence in driving. Any responsibilities, some in the UK noted, were private and not legal. [9] In the United States, the judges seemed to be split on whether a woman can be held liable for her fetus' injuries. However, the Supreme Court of Illinois in 1988 had noted there were the woman's privacy rights to consider. [10]

Returning to this case, the Court found a woman may negligently cause fetal injuries in many ways, car accidents representing 28% of these cases. [11] Moreover, if a place of work is dangerous, tort responsibilities may affect a woman's right to work, or she might be forced to work for the money. [12] It could also have psychological consequences for the woman, and would lead to poor mother-child relations as the child matures. [13]

Another reason why the issue raised concerns of public policy was that the judicial system would have to define the proper behaviour of a pregnant woman, a so-called "reasonable pregnant woman" test. [14] However, Cory responded that courts should not do this. It raised questions as to whether objective expectations can be made, as some people will have subjective beliefs regarding the pregnant woman. [15] This went back to concerns about privacy rights. [16] Moreover, leaving it to the individual to determine what is reasonable makes sense since the individual is more aware of her economic status and ability to obtain health care, and given the educational and ethnic differences of individual women. [17]

Regarding driving, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal had argued that one could separate responsible driving from personal autonomy. This is what had been done with the 1976 UK law that generally exempted the woman from legal responsibilities, except for driving. However, Cory replied that "With respect, the UK legislative solution to the issue at bar cannot be interpreted as support for the test suggested by the Court of Appeal. To do so presumes that it is appropriate for courts to resolve an extremely sensitive and complex issue of public policy and insurance law." Moreover, just because this was a British law did not mean it was a principle of common law. [18] Additionally, the British law was designed this way so that the tort would be covered by insurance, thus easing a driving pregnant woman's stress in knowing her insurance would help. [19]

Lastly, the Court decided that if the existence of motor vehicle insurance is to be relied upon as the basis for imposing a legal duty of care upon pregnant women, then this solution should be enacted by the legislature. A specific and insurance-dependent rule of tort liability cannot, and should not, be created by the courts. [16]

Dissent

In addressing the policy concerns of the majority in the first leg of the Kamloops test, John Major, in his dissent, asserts that owing a duty of care to the born alive child does not impose additional restrictions on the freedom of action of Ms. Dobson. [20] than she already faced from her duty of care owed to any passengers (e.g. another pregnant woman with a born alive child [21] ), or the driver of the car also involved in the accident. [22] It is made clear that during the second branch of the Kamloops test, this argument would not survive where it would add additional duties beyond those already owed to third parties. [23] "To grant a pregnant woman immunity from the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her acts for her born alive child would create a legal distortion as no other plaintiff carries such a one-sided burden, nor any defendant such an advantage." [24]

Commentary

Although this case did not address abortion in Canada, Professor Rand Dyck in a discussion on security of person notes the decision bears some parallels with Tremblay v Daigle (1989). In that case, the Court found a man cannot acquire an injunction to stop his partner from having an abortion. Here, a woman was not legally responsible for fetal injuries. [25]

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies only to government actions, one scholar cites Dobson as an example of how "the courts have undoubtedly promoted flexible Charter values in private law cases since 1982." [26] Conversely, the Human Rights Program under the Department of Canadian Heritage once suggested that Dobson partly illustrates how the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights influences Canadian law. Specifically, Dobson reflects article 10 of the Covenant, "Protection of the Family, Mother and Child." Other cases said to reflect that article include Augustus v Gosset (1996), Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v G (D F) (1997), and New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G (J) (1999). [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits a tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy and many other things.

The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral, legal, and religious status of induced abortion. The sides involved in the debate are the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. "Pro-choice" emphasizes the right of women to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. "Pro-life" emphasizes the right of the embryo or fetus to gestate to term and be born. Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position.

Abortion in Canada termination of pregnancy in Canada

Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy and funded in part by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal barriers to access continue to exist, such as lacking equal access to providers, Canada is the only nation with absolutely no specific legal restrictions on abortion. Medical regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

English tort law branch of English law

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Tremblay v Daigle</i>

Tremblay v Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

<i>Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen</i>

Kamloops v Nielsen, [1984] 2 SCR 2 ("Kamloops") is a leading Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision setting forth the criteria which must be met in order for a plaintiff to make a claim in tort for pure economic loss. In this regard, the Kamloops case is significant because the SCC adopted the "proximity" test set out in the House of Lords decision, Anns v Merton LBC. Kamloops is also significant as it articulates the "discoverability principle" in which the commencement of a limitation period is delayed until the plaintiff becomes aware of the material facts on which a cause of action are discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable diligence. This was later adopted and refined in Central Trust Co v Rafuse. Finally, Kamloops develops the law governing circumstances where a plaintiff can sue the government in tort.

Fetal rights are the moral rights or legal rights of the human fetus under natural and civil law. The term fetal rights came into wide usage after the landmark case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States in 1973. The concept of fetal rights has evolved to include the issues of maternal drug and alcohol abuse. The only international treaty specifically tackling fetal rights is the American Convention on Human Rights which envisages the right to life of the fetus. While international human rights instruments lack a universal inclusion of the fetus as a person for the purposes of human rights, the fetus is granted various rights in the constitutions and civil codes of several countries. Many legal experts believe there is an increasing need to settle the legal status of the fetus.

<i>R v Sullivan</i> (Canada)

R v Sullivan, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 489 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence and whether a partially born fetus is a person.

The "born alive" rule is a common law legal principle that holds that various criminal laws, such as homicide and assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". U.S. courts have overturned this rule, citing recent advances in science and medicine; and in several states, feticide statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include fetuses in utero. Abortion in Canada is still governed by the born alive rule, as courts continue to hold to its foundational principles. In 1996, the Law Lords confirmed that the rule applied in English law but that alternative charges existed in lieu, such as a charge of unlawful or negligent manslaughter instead of murder.

In re A.C. was a 1987 District of Columbia Court of Appeals case. It was the first appellate court case decided against forced Caesarean sections, although the decision was issued after the fatal procedure was performed. Physicians performed a Caesarean section upon patient Angela Carder without informed consent in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of her fetus. The case stands as a landmark in United States case law establishing the rights of informed consent and bodily integrity for pregnant women.

<i>F v R</i>

F v R, is a tort law case. It is a seminal case on what information medical professionals have a duty to inform patients of at common law.

Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1247, is a case in the United States regarding reproductive rights. In particular, the case explored the limits of a woman's right to choose her medical treatment in light of fetal rights at the end of pregnancy.

Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities. Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.

Foeticide is the act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion.

Born alive laws in the United States

"Born alive" laws in the United States are fetal rights laws which extend various criminal laws, such as homicide and assault, to cover unlawful death or other harm done to a fetus in utero or to an infant that is no longer being carried in pregnancy and exists outside of its mother. The basis for such laws stems from advances in medical science and social perception which allow a fetus to be seen and medically treated as an individual in the womb and perceived socially as a person, for some or all of the pregnancy.

Obstetric medicine, similar to maternal medicine, is a sub-specialty of general internal medicine and obstetrics that specializes in process of prevention, diagnosing, and treating medical disorders in with pregnant women. It is closely related to the specialty of maternal-fetal medicine, although obstetric medicine does not directly care for the fetus. The practice of obstetric medicine, or previously known as "obstetric intervention," primarily consisted of the extraction of the baby during instances of duress, such as obstructed labor or if the baby was positioned in breech.

Maternal somatic support after brain death occurs when a brain dead patient is pregnant and her body is kept alive to deliver a fetus. It occurs very rarely internationally. Even among brain dead patients, in a U.S. study of 252 brain dead patients from 1990–96, only 5 (2.8%) cases involved pregnant women between 15 and 45 years of age.

Abortion in Afghanistan is affected by the religious constraints from the national religion, Islam, and by the extremely high birthrates. Afghanistan has one of the highest fertility rates, but its levels are decreasing since the fall of the Taliban, as aid workers can now enter the country to help with fertility and decrease mortality rates. Afghan law is influenced by Islamic law, which comes from the Qur’an. These laws state that abortion is only legal if it is performed to save the life of the mother or if the child is going to be born with a severe disability. This interpretation of Islamic law is based in Islamic medicine, as Muslims cherish the sanctity of human life and believe God does not cause harm or illnesses that are incurable. Due to these constraints, women choose either to pursue an abortion illegally or be shunned by society due to a pregnancy outside of the socially accepted norms. Contraception is approved by Islam when it prevents the formation of the zygote and prevents implantation in the uterus.

Maternal-fetal conflict, also known as obstetric conflict, occurs when a pregnant woman's (maternal) interests conflict with the interests of her baby (fetus). Legal and ethical considerations involving women's rights and the rights of the fetus as a patient and future child, have become more complicated with advances in medicine and technology. Maternal-fetal conflict can occur in situations where the mother denies health recommendations that can benefit the fetus or make life choices that can harm the fetus. There are maternal-fetal conflict situations where the law becomes involved, but most physicians avoid involving the law for various reasons.

References

  1. ↑ Para. 76.
  2. ↑ Para. 1.
  3. ↑ Para. 14.
  4. ↑ Para. 20.
  5. ↑ Para. 21.
  6. ↑ Para. 24.
  7. ↑ Para. 27.
  8. ↑ Para. 29.
  9. ↑ Para. 35.
  10. ↑ Para. 37.
  11. ↑ Para. 42.
  12. ↑ Para. 43.
  13. ↑ Para. 46.
  14. ↑ Para. 49.
  15. ↑ Para. 50.
  16. 1 2 Para. 51.
  17. ↑ Para. 54.
  18. ↑ Para. 64.
  19. ↑ Para. 68.
  20. ↑ Para. 112
  21. ↑ Para. 120.
  22. ↑ Para. 111.
  23. ↑ Para. 119.
  24. ↑ Para. 130.
  25. ↑ Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, third ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000, page 437.
  26. ↑ Mitchell McInnes, "The Measure of Restitution," The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 2. (Spring, 2002), page 201.
  27. ↑ Canadian Heritage. Human Rights Program. "Jurisprudence," URL accessed 28 August 2006.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.