Farley v. Sartin
1995 W. Va. LEXIS 262, 195 W. Va. 671, 466 S.E.2d 522 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term 'person' in West Virginia's wrongful death statute encompasses a nonviable unborn child, and a cause of action may be maintained for the tortious death of such a child regardless of its stage of development.
Facts:
- On November 6, 1991, Cynthia Farley, who was pregnant, was involved in an automobile accident with a tractor-trailer.
- The tractor-trailer was driven by Billy R. Sartin and owned by Lee Sartin Trucking Company, Inc.
- Cynthia Farley was killed as a result of the accident.
- At the time of her death, Mrs. Farley was estimated to be between eighteen and twenty-two weeks pregnant.
- Medical testimony established that the unborn child, Baby Farley, was not developed enough to survive outside the womb and was therefore not viable.
- The treating obstetrician testified that, absent the accident, he had no reason to believe Mrs. Farley would not have had a normal pregnancy.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Farley, as Administrator of the Estate of Baby Farley, filed a wrongful death action in the Circuit Court of Wayne County against Billy R. Sartin and Lee Sartin Trucking Company, Inc.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Baby Farley was not a 'person' under the wrongful death statute because it was not viable at the time of death.
- The Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's case with prejudice.
- The plaintiff, Kenneth Farley, appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'person' in West Virginia's wrongful death statute (W.Va. Code, 55-7-5) include a nonviable unborn child, thereby permitting a cause of action for its tortious death?
Opinions:
Majority - Cleckley, J.
Yes. The term 'person' under West Virginia's wrongful death statute includes a nonviable unborn child. The court's reasoning extends its prior holding in Baldwin v. Butcher, which recognized a cause of action for a viable unborn child. The court determined that the wrongful death statute is remedial and must be liberally construed to achieve its purpose of deterring wrongful conduct and compensating for loss of life. The court rejected viability as an arbitrary and unjust distinction, reasoning that allowing a tortfeasor to escape liability for a greater harm (death) than a lesser harm (injury to a child who is later born alive) is illogical and contrary to the statute's intent. The court concluded that societal and parental loss is egregious regardless of the fetus's stage of development and that difficulties in proof do not justify barring a legitimate claim. This holding is distinguished from the constitutional right to an abortion, as a wrongful death action requires a 'wrongful act, neglect, or default,' which a constitutionally protected abortion is not.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands tort liability in West Virginia by eliminating the viability requirement for wrongful death actions concerning unborn children. It places West Virginia in a minority of jurisdictions by establishing that a cause of action can arise from the moment of conception for the tortious death of an unborn child. The ruling sets a new precedent that removes a major factual and legal hurdle for plaintiffs—the need to prove viability—thereby broadening the scope of potential liability for tortfeasors whose negligence results in the death of a pregnant woman's unborn child.
Unlock the full brief for Farley v. Sartin