There are many forms of negligence, and other tortious conduct, that can lead to the injury of a baby while still in the mother’s womb. Many people’s first thoughts would be to look at the potential tortious conduct of a doctor, which may have caused injury to a baby due to medical negligence. Medical malpractice attorneys have found that most courts have allowed for the recovery of damages when a child is injured while “en ventre sa mere” (meaning “in the mother’s belly”) and is born alive. This is because the negligence of a defendant has caused some sort of injury to the young baby and damages are reasonable even though the child was not yet born. A minority of courts have actually denied the recovery of damages if the child was not yet born, even though the negligence will affect the baby for years down the road.
A Startling Approach by Defense Attorneys
Some lawyers who have represented defendants in these sorts of cases have come forth with surprising, if not shocking, legal arguments to avoid liability. Some attorneys in this situation have argued that there can not possibly be negligence because that tort requires a duty and a breach of duty. The argument follows that a defendant could not have possibly had a duty of care towards a being that is not yet born. This approach is very rarely accepted because it sets forth bad public policy and it tends to disregard the values we tend to hold as a society. Negligence that harms an unborn baby is just as undesirable as any negligence that could injure any one else. Thankfully, medical malpractice attorneys agree that today, recovery of damages is generally acceptable when a baby is injured prior to birth due to some act of negligence.
Medical Malpractice Attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or a family member have recently been the victim of medical negligence, it is possible that you would like to speak with our medical malpractice attorneys. Please contact the Mininno Law Office for a free case evaluation, or call for a free consultation at (856) 833-0600 in New Jersey, or (215) 567-2380 in Philadelphia.
One important case regarding medical malpractice was Hickson v. Martinez from a Texas appellate court. That court held that doctors must act as prudent and reasonable doctors in the same or similar communities would. This ensures that no matter what healthcare provider a patient decides to go to for treatment, that treatment will be relatively similar. Another important case comes from Indiana and is cited as Vergara v. Doan. That court held that a doctor must exercise the degree of skill, care, and proficiency that would be exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent doctors who are placed under similar circumstances. That court said that the locality, different advances in the profession as a whole, the availability of facilities, and whether the healthcare provider was a specialist or a general practitioner are all to be considered. The final case that illustrates this aspect of the law comes from Mississippi. In Hall v. Hilbun, the court viewed the locality expansively, taking into consideration doctors across the United States who have similar facilities, services, equipment and options available to them. Medical malpractice attorneys have found that regardless of the technical criteria of a jurisdiction, doctors should hold themselves to the acceptable standards of other doctors in similar situations.
In some cases, a plaintiff will be awarded a new trial if the damage amount found by the jury appears to be inadequate. In that case, a court will require the case to be retried unless the defendant makes certain concessions. A defendant may agree to pay a larger amount than that which was awarded by the jury in order to properly compensate the plaintiff and avoid a lengthy re-trial. Courts, both on the trial and appellate level, lack the authority 
Governor Bill Haslam made no secrets about his agenda to considerably limit the civil lawsuits within Tennessee. Now with the passing of the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011”, medical malpractice attorneys believe that he may have done just that. Pain and suffering, along with other non-economic damages, will now be capped at a maximum of $750,000. Furthermore, the new Act will also limit punitive damages, in both medical malpractice and personal injury cases, to only $500,000. The most shocking, and potentially limiting to plaintiffs and their medical malpractice attorneys, may be the limits placed on catastrophic cases, which will be $1 million but could effect people forever. These cases qualify as the most serious and life altering scenarios of medical malpractice. Some examples of catastrophic cases caused by medical negligence include when patients become paralyzed, blinded, burned, need an amputation, or pass away when children still qualify as minors. This new law seriously inhibits the rights of patients in seeking compensation that will once again make them whole. Although these cases hopefully will not occur too often, in these rare instances it is highly unjust to limit the amount that plaintiffs can seek at trial but such a large amount.
A recent study called Comparative Safety of Topiramate During Pregnancy, performed by researchers from Harvard University, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, and Loyola University in Chicago, has come to the conclusion that 
