Muschetti v. Charles Pfizer & Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1955 |
| Citation | 208 Misc. 870,144 N.Y.S.2d 235 |
| Parties | Lena MUSCHETTI, Charles Muschetti and 'Mary' Muschetti, a female infant born dead, by Charles Muschetti, her Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES PFIZER & CO., Inc., and F. Onorato, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Max M. Goldberg, Brooklyn, Harry Gilgulin, Brooklyn, of counsel, for plaintiffs.
Rudser & Fitzmaurice, New York City, Thomas F. Byrd, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for defendants.
The defendants move, pursuant to Rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike from the caption of the action under the listed plaintiffs the following: 'and 'Mary' Muschetti, a female infant born dead, by Charles Muschetti, her Guardian ad Litem,' and further move, pursuant to Rule 106, subdivision 4, Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the third cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
No claim or cause of action is set forth in the pleadings in behalf of the dead child. Accordingly, the branch of the motion under Rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice is granted.
The third cause of action alleges an action for the loss of services of the infant born dead. Since such action is derivative, the right to maintain said cause by the plaintiffs would be dependent upon the right of the infant to recover.
Until the Woods v. Lancet case was decided by the New York Court of Appeals, 303 N.Y. 349, 102 N.E.2d 691, 27 A.L.R.2d 1250, the courts of this state followed the rule set forth in the case of Drobner v. Peters, 232 N.Y. 220, 133 N.E. 567, 20 A.L.R. 1503, that an infant could not maintain an action for injuries received in a mother's womb. In overruling the Drobner case the court in the Woods case said [303 N.Y. 349, 102 N.E.2d 695]:
It would thus appear that the right to maintain the action has been extended only to those infants who are both viable and born alive. As was said in Banas v. City of Syracuse, 204 Misc. 201, 125 N.Y.S.2d 490, 491: 'It is now the law that a viable child, injured while en ventre sa mere, who survives such injury, may recover for injuries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Use of Odham v. Sherman
...v. McCoy, 233 S.C. 369, 105 S.E.2d 88. But see In re Scanelli, 208 Misc. 804, 142 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1955), and Muschetti v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 208 Misc. 870, 144 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1955). See also Keyes v. Construction Service Inc., supra (Mass.). To the same effect, but upon widely different rea......
-
Todd v. Sandidge Construction Company
...49 (1956), aff'd. 2 A.D.2d 842, 156 N.Y.S.2d 152, aff'd. 3 N.Y.2d 800, 166 N.Y.S.2d 3, 144 N.E. 2d 644; Muschetti v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 208 Misc. 870, 144 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1955); Howell v. Rushing, Okl., 261 P.2d 217 (1953); Carroll v. Skloff, 415 Pa. 47, 202 A.2d 9 (1964); Durrett v. Owens......
-
Gay v. Thompson, 207
...decision; Hogan v. McDanial, 204 Tenn. 235, 319 S.W.2d 221; Durrett v. Owens, 212 Tenn. 614, 371 S.W.2d 433; Muschetti v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 208 Misc. 870, 144 N.Y.S.2d 235; In re Logan's Estate, 4 Misc.2d 283, 156 N.Y.S.2d 49, aff'd 2 A.D.2d 842, 156 N.Y.S.2d 152, aff'd 3 N.Y.2d 800, 16......
-
Gullborg v. Rizzo
...Inc., 340 Mass. 633, 165 N.E.2d 912 (1960); Drabbels v. Skelly Oil Co., 155 Neb. 17, 50 N.W.2d 229 (1951); Muschetti v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 208 Misc. 870 (1955), 144 N.Y.S.2d 235; Howell v. Rushing, 261 P. 2d 217 (Okla.1953); Hogan v. McDaniel, 204 Tenn. 235, 319 S.W.2d 221 (1958). In re ......