Taylor v. Cutler

SYLLABUS
 

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).

James Taylor, etc., et al. v. Frances Cutler, et al. (A-165-97)

(NOTE: The Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the opinion below.)

Argued December 1, 1998 -- Decided March 2, 1999

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, the Court considers the viability of a claim of preconception negligence.

On July 29, 1982, Christine Taylor (Christine) was involved in an automobile accident with Frances Cutler. Christine sustained serious personal injuries, requiring twenty-five hospitalizations and fifteen surgical procedures. Christine and her husband Sherman subsequently filed suit against Frances Cutler and her husband, which was ultimately settled for $250,000. Christine and her husband signed a release of any and all claims arising out of the accident, and a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice was filed on January 16, 1985.

Over seven years after the accident, on November 29, 1989, Christine gave birth to her son, James Taylor. In August 1992, doctors discovered that James had permanent head and facial damage affecting the function of his eyes and ears known as craniosynostosis. The doctors believed that the multiple pelvic fractures Christine suffered deforming her womb caused James's cranial sutures to close improperly because his head rested on those broken, deformed pelvic bones. James has had eye surgery and will need plastic surgery in the future for his facial deformity.

On August 3, 1994, Christine and Sherman filed a complaint on behalf of James and themselves against Frances Cutler and her husband, alleging that James suffered injuries as a result of the injuries Christine sustained in the automobile accident in 1982. Frances and her husband filed an answer to the complaint and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The motion judge determined that Christine and Sherman's claims in their own behalf were barred because they had signed a release. As to James's claim, the motion judge found that the concept of preconception negligence was not recognized in New Jersey, and judgment in favor of Frances Cutler and her husband was entered. Christine and Sherman appealed entry of that judgment.

After going through a historical analysis of cases dealing with the issue of proximate cause and foreseeability as they relate to the creation of a duty, the Appellate Division found that Frances Cutler had no way of knowing that her negligent actions would cause a risk of harm to a child born seven years after her negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Thus, the Appellate Division found that no duty existed on the part of Cutler, and affirmed entry of judgment in favor of the Cutlers.

In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division distinguished this case from those that involved injuries to an in utero child and from those in which preconception liability has been imposed on physicians in favor of the children of patients who received negligent treatment from the physician. In those cases, the Appellate Division noted, the physician's education and training required him to know, or have reason to know, that negligent treatment of the mother also posed a risk of harm to not yet conceived offspring. The Appellate Division also distinguished those cases in which preconception liability has been imposed in the context of product liability actions. In those cases, the panel noted, based on the (drug) manufacturer's testing of the product, research, and knowledge, the company knew, or should have reasonably perceived, that potential side effects of the drug may cause harm to the mother's future offspring.

The Supreme Court granted the Taylors' petition for certification.

HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division's written decision. Because Frances Cutler had no way of knowing that her negligent actions would cause a risk of harm to James, who was born seven years after her negligent operation of a motor vehicle, no duty or liability exists on the part of Cutler, and judgment was properly entered in her behalf.

CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN join in this PER CURIAM opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A- 165 September Term 1997

JAMES TAYLOR, by his G/A/L CHRISTINE WEISS TAYLOR, and CHRISTINE WEISS TAYLOR, (his mother), individually and SHERMAN TAYLOR, (his father) individually,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FRANCES CUTLER and NORMAN P. CUTLER,

Defendants-Respondents,

and

JOHN DOE and ABC CORP. (said names being fictitious),

Defendants.

Argued December 1, 1998 -- Decided March 2, 1999

On appeal from and certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 306 N.J. Super. 37 (1997).

Katherine G. Houghton argued the cause for appellants.

Karen M. Cassidy argued the cause for respondents (Connell, Foley & Geiser, attorneys; Ms. Cassidy, Lisa M. Fontoura and Kathleen Huntley-Robertson, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

This matter has come before the Court both as an appeal as of right based on a partial concurring and dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division, R. 2:2-1(a)(2), and on a grant of certification in respect of an issue that was resolved unanimously. 153 N.J. 52 (1998). Insofar as the judgment below addresses preconception torts in the context of ordinary negligence, it is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion reported at 306 N.J. Super. 37 (1997). The Court expresses no opinion on that part of the majority opinion that discusses preconception torts in special circumstances of foreseeability involving medical malpractice and strict liability claims.

The Order on certification is vacated as having been improvidently granted.

CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
 

NO. A-165

SEPTEMBER TERM 1997
ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court
and
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court

JAMES TAYLOR, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FRANCES CUTLER, et al.,

Defendants-Respondents,

and

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

DECIDED

March 2, 1999
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY PER CURIAM
CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST
AFFIRM IN PART; VACATE IN PART CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ X JUSTICE HANDLER X JUSTICE POLLOCK X JUSTICE O'HERN X JUSTICE GARIBALDI X JUSTICE STEIN X JUSTICE COLEMAN X TOTALS
7