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.
Under the respondeat superior theory, a theory that applies to many employer/employee relationships, the healthcare provider must be employed by the hospital. In order for a hospital to be liable under respondeat superior, the negligence must occur 
Expert testimony is not necessary to prove a plaintiff’s case when the negligent conduct of the doctor was a matter of common knowledge. One example that constitutes a “matter of common knowledge” is all too frequent in medical treatment today. This example involves a surgeon who negligently leaves a foreign object inside of a patient, such as a sponge, following a medical procedure. Expert testimony is not necessary to prove that the doctor breached his duty to the patient when he began the procedure. A layperson 
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 the first approved settlement, the State Appeals Board approved a settlement in the case of Melinda Schultz for a figure around $300,000. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her anesthesiologist negligently administered pain medication prior to a knee operation. In the second settlement, the family of William Bribriesco was awarded $91,000 to settle the case. Mr. Bribriesco passed away following an extended term at the hospital. The plaintiff’s lawyers in that case alleged that the man died because he developed an infection which was attributable to negligent treatment during his stay at the University of Iowa Hospital. Following a complicated procedure to treat a heart aneurysm, the medical malpractice attorneys believe that negligent treatment led to the man’s demise.
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 
This category of the law has spread in recent years and in different jurisdictions across the United States, other individuals have been able to claim loss of consortium. Some of these individuals include parents, grandparents, and children. It is crucial for lawyers to know the common law in the jurisdiction in which they practice because