Alabama Supreme Court: Wrongful Death Law Covers Destruction of Frozen Embryos

In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., (AL Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held, by a vote of 7-2, that Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act covers the negligent destruction of frozen embryos created during IVF treatment and kept in a clinic's cryogenic nursery. The destruction occurred when a patient wandered into the fertility clinic, removed several embryos and then dropped them when his hands were freeze burned.  Justice Mitchell's majority opinion said in part:

[Defendants] ask us to recognize an unwritten exception for extrauterine children in the wrongful-death context because, they say, our own precedents compel that outcome....

... [Defendants and Alabama Medical Association as amicus] assert that treating extrauterine children as "children" for purposes of wrongful-death liability will "substantially increase the cost of IVF in Alabama" and could make cryogenic preservation onerous.... 

While we appreciate the defendants' concerns, these types of policy-focused arguments belong before the Legislature, not this Court.... Here, the text of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act is sweeping and unqualified.  It applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation.  It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.  That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding "unborn life" from legal protection.  Art. I, § 36.06, Ala. Const.

Chief Justice Parker filed a concurring opinion focusing on Art. I of the Alabama Constitution which provides that declares "it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life...." The Chief Justice said in part:

... [T]he theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. Section 36.06 recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life -- that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.

Justice Shaw, joined by Justice Stewart filed a concurring opinion. 

Justice Mendheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

In my judgment, the main opinion's view that the legal conclusion is "clear" and "black-letter law" is problematic because when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was first enacted in 1872, and for 100 years thereafter, IVF was not even a scientific possibility....

Ultimately ... we must be guided by the language provided in the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act and the manner in which our cases have interpreted it. Under those guideposts, today's result is correct. However, the decision undoubtedly will come as a shock in some quarters of the State. I urge the Legislature to provide more leadership in this area of the law given the numerous policy issues and serious ethical concerns at stake....

Justice Sellers filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying in part:

To equate an embryo stored in a specialized freezer with a fetus inside of a mother is engaging in an exercise of result-oriented, intellectual sophistry, which I am unwilling to entertain.

Justice Cook filed a 56-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:

...   I believe the main opinion overrules our recent Wrongful Death Act caselaw that requires "congruence" between the definition of "person" in Alabama's criminal-homicide statutes and the definition of "minor child" in the Wrongful Death Act.  Both the original public meaning and this recent caselaw indicate the same result here -- that the Wrongful Death Act does not address frozen embryos. 

Moreover, there are other significant reasons to be concerned about the main opinion's holding.  No court -- anywhere in the country -- has reached the conclusion the main opinion reaches. And, the main opinion's holding almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization ("IVF") in Alabama....

1819 News reports on the decision.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Conservative Christian Groups Oppose Arkansas Tort Reform Ballot Measure

AP reports that Arkansas' proposed constitutional amendment on tort reform (full text) is receiving surprising opposition from conservative Christian anti-abortion groups:

A Christian group has begun rallying churches and abortion opponents against the measure, saying that limiting damage awards in lawsuits sets an arbitrary value on human life, contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principles of justice and helping the poor....

The Family Council, which championed Arkansas’ ban on gay marriages, is organizing meetings with church leaders to call for the measure’s rejection.

“The Bible is full of references to justice, and [the proposal] creates an environment where the powerful can tip the scales of justice against everybody else, but especially the poor,” Jerry Cox, the Family Council’s head, said at a recent breakfast meeting with pastors.

Pastors were handed informational booklets emblazoned with the words “Don’t Put A Price Tag On Human Life.” Flyers left on each table offered attendees inserts for their church bulletins.

Idaho Supreme Court: Mormon Church Owed No Special Duty To Child Injured At Church Organized Camp Out

In Beers v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (ID Sup. Ct., Nov. 26, 2013), the Idaho Supreme Court held that neither the Mormon Church nor various individual Ward members are liable for broken ankle suffered by a 13-year old girl in jumping from a bridge during a camp out organized by Ward members of the Church. The court held that there was no special relationship between the Church ("COP") or Ward members and the teenager ("Heidi") that imposed a duty of care to prevent foreseeable injury to the teen.  As to the Church's duty, the Court said:

We are unable to ascribe moral blame to the COP for this incident. We can, however, ascertain negative consequences to the community that would result from imposing a duty and resulting liability upon religious organizations to members of their faith. The result would be a powerful disincentive to organized fellowship activities. Thus, we decline to extend or create a new duty on the part of the COP toward Heidi.

AP reports on the decision.