Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Weitl v. Moes

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 21, 1981No. 64843Published

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

  1. Justus v. AtchisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Van Beeck v. Sabine Towing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. Verkennes v. CornieaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  4. Endresz v. FriedbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  5. Porter v. LassiterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

41 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