Dobson+v.+Dobson

 **Facts**: After his mother was in a car accident in her 27th week of pregnancy, Ryan Dobson was delivered prematurely by Caesarean, and suffers from permanent mental and physical impairment. He is bringing a tort claim against his mother, alleging that her negligence caused the accident that caused his impairment.


 * Issue**: Does Ryan Dobson have the legal capacity to bring a tort action agains his mothe for her allegedly negligent act which occurred while he was in utero? (Lower courts: yes)


 * Held**: No. Appeal allowed.


 * Reasoning (Cory J.): **

**Public policy** dictates that the Court should not impose a duty of care on a pregnant woman towards her foetus or unborn child.

//Montreal Tramways// found a duty of care on **third parties** towards unborn children and that the **compensatory principle** should be the basis of a similar duty on expectant mothers à this fails to take into account the DIFFERENCE between the mother-to-be's relationship to a third-party and the UNIQUE relationship between an expectant mother and her unborn child

The **repercussions** of such a duty are far-reaching: EVERYTHING she does or fails to do could potentially have a detrimental effect on the foetus (this is what //Winnipeg// found about expectant mother - in that case, a glue-sniffing addict).

Royal Commission report on //New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care// rejected judicial interventions in pregnancy and birth – expresses concern with these policy issues and with privacy interests and physical autonomy of pregnant women

Agree with the dissent in //Bonte//: **POLICY ISSUES ARE PARAMOUNT** here (intrusion into privacy and autonomy of a woman)

This DoC could render a pregnant woman liable in tort even where her conduct couldn’t possibly harm a third party

Also, imposition of this kind of liability would have psychological and emotional consequences for a mother, and could have detrimental consequences on the relationship between mother and child, on the relationship between child and family, and on the possibility of a nurturing environment

This kind of liability would fulfil neither the policy aim of deterrence nor that of compensation.


 * Ratio/Rule: Public policy considerations are relevant to finding a duty of care. There should be no duty of care on expectant mothers towards their unborn children because this would fulfill neither the aim of __compensation__ nor that of __deterrence__, and because given the unique relationship between mother and foetus, such a duy woud mean an excessive intrusion on the mother's __privacy and autonomy rights.__**