NEWS: New Law Allows Child Damaged In Womb To Sue Mother

CULTURE: New Law Allows Child Damaged In Womb To Sue Mother

A new law just passed in Alberta allows children who suffer damages in the womb to sue their parents.

i can see suing for damages if the mother abuses drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, something the mother has direct control over, but not over a car accident. are pregnant women not supposed to drive and/or ride in automobiles while pregnant? what happens if they're on public transit, could they then sue the city as well?

That's what I was thinking. I don't get it. Are pregnant women supposed to stay in their homes for nine months? What if they tripped and injured the fetus? Seems like it would make more sense to be able to sue for the mother is actualy at fault for...

So this is simply a way to get insurance companies to pony up on the bills for looking after the kid?

I mean, pretty clearly the lawyers wouldn't go after the mother if she was skint. They're going after the mother to get to the insurance company, yes?

Well, it's about negligence. Just because she felt fine after the accident doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been going to the doctor regularly enough to find out if anything was wrong.

that's what it looks like, but i don't see how the mother's insurance company should be required to pay either. i thought health care was provided by the gov't in canada?

This way the cost burden will be shifted from the government to the insurance companies.

The health car is covered, but prescription medication is not covered 100%, and neither are other costs associated with constant care. Also, if the child needs to go on Assured Income for the severely handicapped, it pays way below the poverty line

So the idea for the naysayers here is that you should be able to buy car insurance to cover the damages for the automobile-related harm you accidentally inflict on anyone except those you love the most?

Agreed...also, if the girl needs round the clock care, is she really in a position to be suing someone, or is someone suing on her behalf?

...insurance costs in alberta are already one of the highest in the country, about time it had a reason to be asides from corporate greed

yeah really.

This law allows mothers to sue themselves on behalf of their children.

The child in this case is not only deaf and disabled, but five years old. The child is not in court suing their own mom. The mom is wanting to shift the burden of payment from herself alone to her insurance company.

If the woman was driving and hit another driver, her insurance would pay out the injured victim. Not the woman herself. In this case it was the unborn fetus injured in the accident. And it has so far been the mother paying out of pocket for the child's round the clock care. Now that she's won the case, the mother's insurance company will be paying the child (meaning: paying the mother)

So no, you could not sue someone who tripped you by accident while you were pregnant., because car insurance does not cover injuries caused by tripping.

And yes, this is a way of getting insurance companies to cover the cost of caring for the child. And the mother would be going after the claim especially if she was skint.

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 12:36AM]

Ok...explained that way this makes a lot more sense. It's still kind of bizarre on first impression, though.

Oh for fuck's sake!!

thank you! also, if you are injured in a car accident where you are at fault, if you have full coverage, you can actually sue your own insurance company for damages. you'll probably have your policy canceled eventually, or your rates will go up, but you can do it (at least here in CA - a friend of mine did it when she was almost killed after hitting black ice and going down an embankment).

scratch that.

decided to go back and read all the posts...

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 5:22AM]

[Edited on Dec 05, 2005 5:26AM]

Wait, you mean these news-thingers have links?

That's what headlines to do people. All those capital letters send them into a frenzy, why bother with all the small words?

Anyway, what a crafty law.

that is crafty...but the part that upsets me is that this constant care isn't already provided by insurances companies, and they need to be sued in order to be made to do their job...

if she wasnt paying for it in the first place what is the point of the claim.. its suss the mother is probably behind the daughter so she can have her medical bills by insurance.

I agree.

Playing devil's advocate here:

I saw this posted in another forum -

This law could potentially open up a whole nother can of worms.