Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:40:22.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wrongful Death: Oklahoma Supreme Court Replaces Viability Standard with “Live Birth” Standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Fatma Marouf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On December 7,1999, a divided Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Nealis v. Baird that a claim may be brought under Oklahoma's wrongful death statute on behalf of a nonviable fetus born alive. The decision represents a departure from the traditional notion that “viability”—the ability of a fetus to sustain life outside the womb with or without medical assistance—is the standard for wrongful death recovery. In replacing the “viability” standard with a “live birth” standard, the majority maintained that live birth is the “unassailable point at which legal rights must be said to attach to the human person. “ By holding a nonviable fetus a legal “person” for the purpose of a wrongful death claim, the court's decision emphasizes the limited application of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Spring 2000 , pp. 88 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1999 WL 1116790 (Okla.)Google Scholar
12 Okla. Stat. 1991§ 1053. An action for wrongful death permits the decedent's personal representative (in this case, his parents) to bring a lawsuit only if the decedent had a right of recovery for injuries at the time of his death.Google Scholar
Supra note 1, at 17.Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed. 2d, 147 (1973).Google Scholar
Supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
1976 OK 64,550 P. 2d 924, overruling Howell v. Rushing, 1953 OK 232, 261 P. 2d 217 and Padillow v. Elrod, 1967 OK 18, P. 2d 16.Google Scholar
1991 OK CIV APP 121,830 P. 2d 1393.Google Scholar
1993 OK 6, 847 P.2d 342Google Scholar
Supra note 1, at 10.Google Scholar
Supra note 4.Google Scholar
Supra note 1, at 10Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
63 O.S. 1991 § 1–732; 59 O.S. 1991 §§ 524.Google Scholar
Supra note 1, at 15.Google Scholar
Bodkin, Delivery Room Decisions for Tiny Infants; An Ethical Analysis, 1 J. Clinical Ethics, 306, 307 (Winter 1990), as quoted in Nealis v. Baird, supra note 1, at 18.Google Scholar
Nealis v. Baird, supra note 1, at 18.Google Scholar