Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Laboratories, Inc.

Decision Date01 February 1972
Docket NumberCiv. No. 71-689.
Citation336 F. Supp. 961
PartiesAndrew N. JORGENSEN, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Kimberly D. Jorgensen, Deceased, and Pamela B. Jorgensen, By and Through her Father and Next Friend, Andrew N. Jorgensen, Plaintiffs, v. MEADE JOHNSON LABORATORIES, INC., a Corporation, dba Oracon, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

Don Manners, of Manners, Merz & Grennan, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.

Alex Cheek, of Cheek, Cheek & Cheek, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

EUBANKS, District Judge.

This is a product liability case. The action is predicated on (1) alleged breach of express and implied warranties attendant the use of birth control pills and (2) alleged negligence of the defendant manufacturer in failing to warn of dangers in the use of its product. Motion to dismiss was overruled by Order dated December 23, 1971. The matter now before the Court for disposition is a motion to reconsider.

The complaint alleges that Andrew N. Jorgensen and Alta J. Jorgensen are husband and wife and parents of the plaintiffs. It alleges that prior to October 1966, the wife had used Oracon birth control pills, manufactured by defendant, but had discontinued their use and that on or about November 1, 1966, she became pregnant and on July 17, 1967, gave birth to Mongoloid Twins—Kimberly D. Jorgensen, now deceased, and Pamela J. Jorgensen, plaintiffs herein.

The complaint further alleges that the Oracon birth control pills used by Alta J. Jorgensen altered the chromosome structure of her body to produce the Mongoloid deformity in her issue. Count I of the complaint is brought by Pamela B. Jorgensen, by and through her father and next of kin, Andrew N. Jorgensen, and prays for judgment in the amount of $3,000,000.00, and Count II is brought by Kimberly D. Jorgensen, by his father, Andrew N. Jorgensen, as special administrator of his estate and prays for judgment in the amount of $3,000,000.00.

The defendant moved to dismiss alleging that the complaint fails to state a cause of action in favor of said minor plaintiffs. The motion was overruled by Order dated December 23, 1971. The defendant has moved for reconsideration.

This is a diversity action and the applicable substantive law is that of the State of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. The plaintiff cites no statutory or decisional law of Oklahoma which allows a child to recover for his malformation caused by injury to the ovum of his mother prior to his conception. We find no holding by any court that a child may recover for injury to the sperm of its male parent or the ovum of its female parent before the two unite in conception. One authority states unqualifiedly that there is none such. 9 Am.Jur., Proof of Facts 523-24.

The plaintiff relies on Zepeda v. Zepeda, (1963) 41 Ill.App.2d 240, 190 N.E.2d 849. Zepeda, supra, is to be distinguished. It was not a product liability case. The holding was by an intermediate appellate court. The language therefrom on which plaintiff relies was dictum. The case is not controlling of the case at hand.

Although not directly in point because the case was disposed of on a limitation of action issue, Morgan v. United States, (D.C.N.J.1956) 143 F.Supp. 580, is persuasive here. There one William Morgan, an infant, by his guardian ad litem, sought to recover for injuries allegedly resulting from the defendant's negligently transfusing into his mother's bloodstream, 15 months prior to his birth, blood of an improper type. In sustaining motion for dismissal, the Court said:

When the tortious conduct occurred William Morgan had not yet been conceived . . .
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Laboratories, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 1, 1973
    ...and breach of express and implied warranties. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim for relief. 336 F.Supp. 961. Due to the favorable consideration which must be given a complaint on the motion, and principles of Oklahoma law on such bases of recovery, we are ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT