Grodin v. Grodin

• Citation: 102 Mich.App. 396,301 N.W.2d 869
• Decision Date: 15 December 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44101
• Parties: Randy GRODIN, a minor by his next friend, Dennis Grodin and Dennis Grodin, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roberta GRODIN, Defendant-Appellee, and Dr. Daniel Cohen, M. D., Defendant. 102 Mich.App. 396, 301 N.W.2d 869
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 869

301 N.W.2d 869

Randy GRODIN, a minor by his next friend, Dennis Grodin and Dennis Grodin, Individually Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roberta GRODIN, Defendant-Appellee and Dr. Daniel Cohen, M. D., Defendant.

Docket No. 44101.

102 Mich.App. 396, 301 N.W.2d 869

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Dec. 15, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1981.

Released for Publication Feb. 20, 1981.

[102 MICHAPP 397] Steven G. Silverman, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John G. Konkel, Ronald R. Gilbert, Detroit, for Roberta Grodin.

A. Stewart Kerr, Detroit, for Daniel Cohen.

[102 MICHAPP 398] Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and MAHER and WALSH, JJ.

CAVANAGH, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, Randy Grodin, and his father, Dennis Grodin, individually and as his next friend, appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Randy's mother, Roberta Grodin. The action against defendant Dr. Daniel Cohen was not dismissed by summary judgment. Only defendant Roberta Grodin is a party to this appeal.

It is alleged that as a result of Dr. Cohen's assurances that it was impossible for her to become pregnant, Roberta continued to take the medication Tetracycline. Only after consulting a different doctor who told her she was seven or eight months pregnant did Roberta stop taking the medication. As a result of his mother's taking the drug, Randy developed teeth that were brown and discolored.

The plaintiffs' original complaint alleged that Dr. Cohen was liable to plaintiff Randy Grodin as a result of malpractice in not administering a pregnancy test to defendant Roberta Grodin after symptoms of pregnancy were brought to the doctor's attention. Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted that defendant Roberta Gordin was negligent in her failure to seek proper prenatal care, for failure to request that Dr. Cohen perform a pregnancy test and her failure to inform Dr. Cohen that she was taking Tetracycline.

The trial court granted Roberta's motion for summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(1), basing the dismissal on a mother's immunity from suit for her alleged negligence under the second exception to the general abrogation of parent-child tort immunity[102 MICHAPP 399] provided by Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1, 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972).

In Plumley, supra, the Michigan Supreme Court in overruling the doctrine of intrafamily tort immunity held:

"We are persuaded that the modern rule best serves the interests of justice and fairness to all concerned. The case of Elias v. Collins, supra, which provides for intra-family tort immunity is overruled. A child may maintain a lawsuit against his parent for injury suffered as a result of the alleged ordinary negligence of the parent. Like our sister states, however, we note two exceptions to this new rule of law: (1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services and other care." Plumley, supra, 8, 199 N.W.2d 169. (Footnote omitted.)

The trial court in the present case analyzed Plumley's second exception by stating:

"The policy underlying the exceptions is 'that within the framework of parental authority and discretion, parents must be accorded immunity from litigation which in fact would disrupt family harmony and unity. The immunity is limited to transactions which are essentially parental.' Lemmen v. Servais, 39 Wis.2d 75, 158 N.W.2d 341, 344 (1968); see also Schenk v. Schenk, 100 Ill.App.2d 199, 241 N.E.2d 12 (1968). Thus, this Court finds that Plumley's second exception asks essentially whether the defendant's behavior involves the exercise of parental discretion in an area in which such discretion is ordinarily or reasonably employed."

The Supreme Court in Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971), determined that a child could bring a negligence action against a [102 MICHAPP 400] tortfeasor for negligently inflicting prenatal injuries.

"In the light of the present state of science and the overwhelming weight of judicial authority, this Court now overrules Newman. We hold that an action does lie at common law for negligently inflicted prenatal injury. We adopt the reasoning and result of the New Jersey Supreme Court (which also involved a common-law action):

" 'And regardless of analogies to other areas of the law, justice requires that the principle be recognized that a child has a legal right to begin life with a sound mind and body. If the wrongful conduct of another interferes with that right, and it can be established by competent proof that there is a causal connection between the wrongful interference and the harm suffered by the child when born, damages for such harm should be recoverable by the child.' Smith v. Brennan, (1960), 31 N.J. 353, 364, 365, 157 A.2d 497, 503." Womack v. Buchhorn, supra, 384 Mich. 725, 187 N.W.2d 218.

Womack, supra, does not limit those who may be held liable for the negligently inflicted injury. The rationale of Smith v. Brennan, supra, adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Womack, refers only to wrongful conduct of "another" for which compensable damages are available. As a result, the litigating child's mother would bear the same liability for injurious, negligent conduct as would a third person.

A woman's decision to continue taking drugs during pregnancy is an exercise of her discretion. The focal question is whether the decision reached by a woman in a particular case was a "reasonable exercise of parental discretion". Plumley, supra,...