Laboratory Corp. of America v. Hood
395 Md. 608, 2006 Md. LEXIS 815, 911 A.2d 841 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action, Maryland applies the law of the place of injury (lex loci delicti) but will refuse to apply foreign law if it violates a strong, clear, and important public policy of Maryland. A duty of care may extend to a non-patient father in a wrongful birth case if facts establish a sufficient relationship, as this does not create a duty to an indeterminate class of people.
Facts:
- Karen and Scott Hood, Maryland residents, are both carriers of the recessive gene mutation for cystic fibrosis (CF).
- Their first child was born with CF, and they had previously terminated a second pregnancy after prenatal testing revealed the fetus had CF.
- During Karen Hood's third pregnancy, she underwent an amniocentesis in Maryland, and the specimen was sent to a Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) facility in North Carolina for genetic testing.
- LabCorp was specifically informed that both Karen and Scott Hood carried the CF gene.
- LabCorp employees in North Carolina misread the test results and reported to the Hoods' Maryland physician that the fetus was not expected to be affected by CF.
- Relying on this erroneous report, the Hoods decided to continue the pregnancy.
- Their son, Luke, was born in Maryland and was subsequently diagnosed with CF.
- LabCorp later issued a corrected report, admitting that its employees had misread the original chromatograph which, in fact, indicated the fetus was positive for the CF mutation.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen and Scott Hood filed a negligence action against Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The U.S. District Court, applying Maryland choice-of-law rules, concluded that the governing substantive law would be that of the place of injury (Maryland) under the principle of lex loci delicti.
- LabCorp argued for an exception under Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 380(2) that would apply North Carolina law, and also argued it owed no duty to Scott Hood.
- Finding these to be unresolved questions of Maryland state law, the U.S. District Court certified three questions of law to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wrongful birth action where the negligent act occurred in North Carolina but the injury occurred in Maryland to Maryland residents, does Maryland's public policy exception to the lex loci delicti rule prevent the application of North Carolina law that bars such actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilner, J.
Yes, Maryland's public policy exception prevents the application of North Carolina law that bars wrongful birth actions. While Maryland adheres to the choice-of-law doctrine of lex loci delicti (the law of the place of injury), it recognizes a public policy exception where the foreign law is contrary to a clear and strong public policy of Maryland. The right of parents to bring a wrongful birth action, as established in Reed v. Campagnolo, constitutes such a strong policy, rooted in modern medical science and the right of parents to make informed reproductive decisions. The North Carolina rule from Azzolino v. Dingfelder, which holds that life, even with severe defects, is not a legally cognizable injury, is directly contrary to this important Maryland policy and will not be applied. Furthermore, a duty of care may extend to the father, Scott Hood, because extending a duty to a known father does not risk creating liability to an indeterminate class of people; however, whether a sufficient relationship exists to create that duty is a question of fact for the trial court.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Maryland's adherence to the traditional lex loci delicti rule in torts, bucking the modern trend toward the 'most significant relationship' test. Crucially, it formally establishes and applies a robust public policy exception, demonstrating that Maryland courts will protect the state's residents and strongly-held legal principles when traditional choice-of-law rules point to a contrary foreign law. The decision clarifies that this exception is reserved for situations where the foreign law is contrary to a 'strong' and 'clear' Maryland policy, not merely different. By distinguishing the duty owed to a non-patient spouse in a wrongful birth context, the court also signals a willingness to expand duty in a limited, fact-specific manner where the class of potential plaintiffs is determinate.
