English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In Turpin v. Sortini,t the California Supreme Court considered for the first time a cause of action for "wrongful life."2 In the first decision of its kind by a state's highest court, the court granted a cause of action to a child born with a hereditary defect that allegedly burdens her life to the extent that she would have been better off had she never been born.4 While the court broke with what was then unanimous precedent in other American jurisdictions by allowing any recovery at all, it nevertheless limited the child's recovery to special damages, denying her claim for general damages. This Note argues that the wrongful life cause of action cannot be justified under established tort principles or legal policies. A correct analysis of this claim reveals a fundamental conceptual flaw: the impossibility of establishing the existence of harm.5 The Turpin court acknowledged this flaw, yet granted special damages nonetheless. This Note argues that the policy considerations upon which the court justified awarding special damages do not support the court's decision. Rather, important policy considerations argue against recognition of the wrongful life cause of action. Part I of this Note sets forth the facts of Turpin and summarizes the majority and dissenting opinions. Part II presents the legal background of the wrongful life claim. Part III analyzes the wrongful life

Turpin v. Sortini: Recognizing the Unsupportable Cause of Action for Wrongful Life