Alberta will be considering legislation this month that will enable a child to sue its mother for damages incurred from automobile accidents that happened while the child was still in the womb.
Currently legislation exists that allows children to sue other people for damages incurred prior to being born, but suing the mother is strictly off limits. This was decided in the Dobson case by the Supreme Court of Canada, likely as a means of avoiding the thorny issue of mothers being held responsible for the health of their fetuses throughout pregnancy. The issue at stake was whether or not a fetus has a legal standing as a person prior to birth. As you can guess, this bleeds into abortion issues – which is why the mother was left untouchable.
This sad case of a mother being in a car accident has resulted in the belief that the baby was born with health problems due to the trauma of the accident. The girl (Brooklyn) now lives a difficult life and the family is looking for a way to help pay for the costs of the aide required for Brooklyn.
So now we get to the yuckiest part of the story – insurance.
Essentially the legislation is being designed to allow suing of the mother so that the mother’s insurance can pay for the care required by Brooklyn. The government believes that offloading this health cost to the auto insurance company is the correct and legal thing. It should be legislated as the right thing to do.
It is this distinct aspect of the situation that people are claiming will protect pregnant women from seeing lawsuits raised for any other reason:
The only reason mothers can’t be sued for other risky activities, he said, is because no insurance is available.
I mean, how much clearer does it get? They want to change the legislation because a pool of money exists to help pay the healthcare costs that may have resulted from a car accident. The issue of fetal legal rights is being skirted here by saying that there’s nobody to sue for other activities.
So mom goes for a nice long rock-climbing outing in month 5. She trips on a rock and falls down hard. The baby is later born with health difficulties – but there’s nobody insured here so there’s nothing to be worrying about.
How absolutely stupid is this? If the problem is with obtaining funding for healthcare costs, why are we changing the laws about suing car insurers? Is that really addressing the problem here? Do we really expect there to be no negative fallout for women because of this change?
If I were an insurer, I’d look carefully are the risks involved when insuring someone. Driver’s record? 2 accidents eh, well, that means you gotta pay more. Pregnant? Well, you’re a bit riskier then, you gotta pay a little more.
Presto! It’s another cost shouldered by all pregnant women who wish to drive during their pregnancy.
And this is progress?!?
P.S. I’m sure the lawyers involved in this case are all about the child’s best interests. Yes, that was sarcastic.