Weitl v. Moes
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLarson, Justice
I concur in Division I and in the result of Division II. I dissent from Division III.
The issue under Division III of the majority opinion is not whether we overrule McKillip because, as the majority points out, that case, involving a nonviable fetus, is distinguishable. Rather, the issue is whether we should expand the rule of McKillip to deny recovery for a viable fetus as well. Contrary to the assertions of the majority, denial of recovery is not mandated by our survival statute; it is in fact inimical to its very purpose. And a denial of this claim would further commit Iowa to what is…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Justus v. AtchisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Van Beeck v. Sabine Towing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Verkennes v. CornieaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Endresz v. FriedbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Porter v. LassiterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.