Park v. Chessin, 000 Misc. 2d 000, 387 N.Y.S.2d 204 (Sup. Ct. 1976).
A slowly but steadfastly emerging area in the field of tort liability is the action for "wrongful life" or, as it has been termed, "an action based on the right to be well born." The courts have, for the most part, grimly denied recovery on such theory, citing lack of precedent, impossibility of measuring damages, the fear of opening the door to a flood of litigation, lack of causation, lack of duty, and the public policies against intra-family suits and against encouraging abortions. Most of the judicial objections are policy-based, thereby affording the courts the ever-available rationale that decisions and judgments as to such matters are best left to the legislatures. In recent years, a few decisions have recognized the viability of actions which closely resemble the original "wrongful life" actions. These decisions, coupled with writings of legal commentators advocating the generic type of action," may signal the emergence of a new cause of action or at least the definition of a new class of foreseeable plaintiffs in the field of malpractice tort action.
Peduzzi, Edward F. Jr.
"Wrongful Conception: A Conditional Prospective Liability to One Not Yet in Being,"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 2:
2, Article 9.
Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol2/iss2/9