Legal Opinion

Leccese v. McDonough

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 7, 1972PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCutter, J.

A Superior Court judge sustained the demurrer of each of the defendants, two doctors, in an action of tort for negligence in giving prenatal care to the plaintiff administrator’s intestate (the Leccese foetus). The declaration alleges that in October, 1969, the Leccese foetus “was a viable child in the womb” and that, “in consequence of” each defendant’s negligence in treating it over seven months, it “suffered great pain of body and mind, and subsequently died.” The action is “for the benefit and use of the next of kin” under G. L. c. 229 (see fn. 1). The plaintiffs admit “for purposes of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dietrich v. Inhabitants of NorthamptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
  2. Keyes v. Construction Service, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960
  3. Torigian v. Watertown News Co. Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  4. Bliss v. PassanesiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  5. Cavanaugh v. First National Stores, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Payton v. Abbott LabsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. Mone v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Eich v. Town of Gulf ShoresSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
  4. Libbee v. Permanente ClinicOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Evans v. OlsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API