[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Div.1st Dep t 2004).62.Johnson v.Jamaica Hosp., 478 N.Y.S.2d 838 (1984) (Court of Appeals).63.Larsen v.Banner Health System, 81 P.3d 196 (Wyo.2003).64.See Martha Albertson Fineman, The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency 188(2004); Mary Becker, Care and Feminists, 17 Wis.Women s L.J.57 (2002).65.Harnicher v.University of Utah Medical Center, 962 P.2d 67 (Utah 1998).66.See Andrews v.Keltz, 838 N.Y.S.2d 363( 2007) (no recovery for emotional distressfor giving birth to  darker skinned child when clinic used wrong sperm for IVF proce-dure).For a discussion of the cases, see Leslie Bender,  To Err Is Human ART Mixups: ALabor-Based, Relational Proposal, 9 J.Gender, Race & Just.443 (2006).67.William L.Prosser, Law of Torts §54 at 333 (4th ed.1971).68.See Dulieu v.White & Sons, 2 K.B.669 (1901); Hambrook v.Stoked Bros., 1 K.B.141 (1925); Waube v.Warrington, 258 N.W.497 (Wis.1935); Amaya v.Home Ice, Fuel &Supply Co., 379 P.2d 513 (Cal.1963); Dillon v.Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Cal.1968); Thing v.LaChusa, 771 P.2d 814 (Cal.1989).69.Dillon v.Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Cal.1968).70.See Dan B.Dobbs, The Law of Torts at 841 43 (2000) (discussing loss of consor-tium claims for spousal and parent/child relationships); id.at 807 815 (discussing recover-able damages in wrongful death action).71.Restatement (Third) §47 at 92 93 (Tentative Draft No.5, April 4, 2007) (ReportersNote).72.Id.at 82.73.See Thing, 771 P.2d at 814 (recovery denied to mother who was nearby an accident,rushed to the scene, and saw her child s bloody and unconscious body); Marchetti v.Par-sons, 638 A.2d 1047 (R.I.1994) (recovery denied to parents who saw bloodied, immobilechild on a stretcher at the hospital).74.See e.g., Thing, 771 P.2d at 828 ( the impact of personally observing the injury-producing event.distinguishes the plaintiff  s resultant emotional distress felt when onelearns of the injury or death of a loved one from another, or observes pain and sufferingbut not the traumatic cause of the injury ).See Martha Chamallas, The September 11thVictim Compensation Fund: Rethinking the Damages Element in Injury Law, 71 Tenn.L.Rev.51, 77 78 (2003) (discussing especially severe effects of  traumatic versus  normal lossof a loved one).75.See Richard A.Epstein, Torts §10.15, at 278 (1999) (requirement that plaintiff be aclose family member has held  fairly firm over time ).76.Restatement (Third) §47, cmt.e (Tentative Draft No.5, April 4, 2007).77.Compare Dunphy v.Gregor, 642 A.2d 372 (N.J.1994); Graves v.Estabrook, 818 A.2d1255 (N.H.2003) (allowing claim to fiancée); Lozoya v.Sanchez, 66 P.3d 948 (N.M.2003)(allowing claim to fiancée); Yovino v.Big Bubba s BBQ, 896 A.2d 161 (Conn.Super.Ct.2006) (allowing claim to fiancée); Watters v.Walgreen, 967 So.2d 930 (Fla.Dist.Ct.2007)(allowing claim to stepchildren) with Elden v.Sheldon, 758 P.2d 582 (Cal.1988) (denying210 | Notes to pp.106 115claim to unmarried cohabitant); Smith v.Toney, 862 N.E.2d 656 (Ind.2007) (denyingclaim to fiancée); Trobetta v.Conkling, 626 N.E.2d 653 (N.Y.1993) (denying claim toniece); Grotts v.Zahner, 989 P.2d 415 (Nev.1999) (denying claim to fiancée); Guzman v.Kirchhoefel, 2005 WL 1684978 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.2005) (denying claim to cousin).78.Guzman v.Kirchhoefel, 2005 WL 1684978 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.2005).79.Dunphy v.Gregor, 642 A.2d 372 (N.J.1994).80.Restatement (Third) §47, cmt.e (Tentative Draft No.5, April 4, 2007) (citing Prin-ciples of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations §2.03 (c) andComment c).81.Lozoya v.Sanchez, 66 P.3d 948 (N.M.2003).82.Barbara J.Cox, Alternative Families: Obtaining Traditional Family Benefits throughLitigation, Legislation and Collective Bargaining, 15 Wis.Women s L.J.93, 133 37 (2000);Cynthia Grant Bowman, A Feminist Proposal to Bring Back Common Law Marriage, 75 Or.L.Rev.709, 764 65 (1996).83.Such an approach was advocated by Canadian law professor Shauna Van Praagh ina paper prepared for the Law Commission of Canada.See Compensation for RelationalHarm (July 5, 2001).84.Currently, wrongful death recovery is governed by statutes, typically naming specificclasses of beneficiaries.For nonfatal cases, common law claims for loss of spousal consor-tium are well established.However, loss of consortium claims are less uniformly recognizedfor relational injuries to parents or children [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]