Should a fetus be able to sue? A Canadian woman whose fetus was harmed in utero during a car accident and now suffers from cerebral palsy believes her child should have the right to sue her insurance company for damages. The woman claims that had her son been a passenger in the vehicle, he would have been eligible for benefits. When she took her case to the Supreme Court of Canada, the court ruled that legislation covering car accidents could be passed by provincial governments. But legislators in her area haven't acted on it.
I saw this and thought this was interesting. I say no. I guess I am not sure how they could prove the cerebral palsy came from the accident. I think it would open too many doors to more frivilous lawsuits!
How old is the child now? It seems to me that it should've been up to mom to sue for damages to her and her unborn child, and have the child evaluated at that time, possibly with further testing after he is born if the doctor feels it is necessary. Now it's too late to say for sure whether the cerebral palsy was caused by the accident. I would guess that mom is just looking to blame someone for her child's defects.
But then of course, many people say fetuses should have rights. Under that understanding, I don't see why the fetus couldn't sue.
I researched cerebral palsy, it does actually come from trauma in the womb. But I still think this opens too many doors and still would be too hard to prove. I agree they are looking for someone to blame. I wonder how US law deals with this. I am thinking they do not or we would probably hear more about it.
I thought cerabral palsy was a genetic thing ? 
