GWENDOLYN GOLDEN YOUNG, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ETC., RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1996-03-14
No. 85707
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
673 So. 2d 482 Florida Supreme Court (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision of the district court certifying the question of whether a fetus is a person within the meaning of section 768.19, Florida Statutes (1993) (Florida Wrongful Death Act). Young v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Inc., 653 So. 2d 499, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Based on Hernandez v. Garwood, 390 So. 2d 357 (Fla.1980), we answer the question in the negative and approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tanner v. Ellie M. Hartog, 696 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1997)
    …F ANOTHER? Tanner, 678 So. 2d at 1322.3 At the outset, we note that this Court has repeatedly held that there is no cause of action under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act for the death of a stillborn fetus. Young v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Inc., 673 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1996); Hernandez v. Garwood, 390 So. 2d 357 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Flynn, 358 So. 2d 178 (Fla.1978); Stern v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 303 (Fla.1977). The rationale for these decisions is that a fetus is not a “person” within the meaning of the statut…
  • …determined a fetus to be a person. Rather, the opposite is true. For instance, the Florida Supreme Court declined to rule that a fetus is a “person” within the meaning of the Florida Wrongful Death Act,8 Young v. St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Inc., 673 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla.1996), and the Fourth District declined to apply a child abuse statute9 in a case involving a fetus, State v. Gethers, 585 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) (“the…
  • Kammer v. Hurley, 765 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
    …eath action. We disagree. The law correctly recognizes a legal distinction between a “fetus” in the womb, .even a split second before delivery, and a “person” who takes a breath one second after delivery. See Young v. St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., Inc., 673 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla.1996); Hernandez v. Garwood, 390 So. 2d 357, 358-59 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Flynn, 358 So. 2d 178, 178 (Fla.1978); Stern v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 303, 307 (Fla.1977). However, the emotional devastation and mental anguish suffered by parents due…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw