Olejniczak v. Whitten

Missouri Court of Appeals

Olejniczak v. Whitten

605 S.W.2d 142, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1980

DocketNo. 41898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 605 S.W.2d 142 (Olejniczak v. Whitten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olejniczak v. Whitten, 605 S.W.2d 142, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2693 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Action by husband and wife for the wrongful death of their unborn child, allegedly caused by defendant doctor’s negligence. On defendant’s motion the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs appeal; we affirm.

Our wrongful death statute, Section 537.-080, RSMo. 1969, provides recovery for wrongful death of a person. State ex rel. Hardin v. Sanders, 538 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. banc 1976), like the case before us, was an action for wrongful death of an unborn child, dismissed for failure to state a claim. In affirming the supreme court reasoned at l.c. 338 that a fetus is not a person and in upholding the trial court’s dismissal squarely ruled: “We hold that a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child.” So it is here.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Action by husband and wife for the wrongful death of their unborn child, allegedly caused by defendant doctor’s negligence. On defendant’s motion the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiffs appeal; we affirm.

Our wrongful death statute, Section 537.-080, RSMo. 1969, provides recovery for wrongful death of a person. State ex rel. Hardin v. Sanders, 538 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. banc 1976), like the case before us, was an action for wrongful death of an unborn child, dismissed for failure to state a claim. In affirming the supreme court reasoned at l.c. 338 that a fetus is not a person and in upholding the trial court’s dismissal squarely ruled: “We hold that a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child.” So it is here.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 S.W.2d 142, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olejniczak-v-whitten-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack