Plaintiff worked for Defendant when she became pregnant with a high-risk pregnancy. Plaintiff told supervisor that she was not strong enough to endure the pregnancy and had several dangerous near-miscarriages. Plaintiff was shortly demoted to a position which included manual labor. After work-related anxiety attacks, she prematurely delivered a son. Plaintiff brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, gender discrimination, and pregnancy-related retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as a negligence claim on behalf of her son. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims brought on behalf of Plaintiff’s son. The court determined that children have a right to be born free of prenatal injuries which a breach of duty on the mother’s behalf could foreseeably cause and that a child has a right to recover for injuries obtained prenatally from the negligence of another. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss.
Women and Justice: Keywords
Domestic Case Law
Mejia v. Catholic Charities of the Archdioceses of Chicago United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (2015)
Carmichele v. Minister of Safety and Security Constitutional Court of South Africa (Konstitusionele Hof van Suid Afrika) (2001)
The applicant was sexually assaulted by a man who was awaiting trial for the attempted rape of another woman. Despite the seriousness of the alleged crime and the fact that the man had a prior rape conviction, the police and prosecutor had recommended that the man be released pending trial. The applicant sued the Minister for damages, arguing that the police and prosecutors had negligently failed to comply with a legal duty they owed to her to take steps to prevent the man from causing her harm. The High Court dismissed the applicant's claim and the Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the police and prosecution did not owe her a duty of protection. On appeal, the Constitutional Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and remanded the case to the High Court for trial. It held that the State is obligated by the Constitution and international law to protect the dignity and security of women and in the circumstances, the police recommendation for the assailant's release could amount to wrongful conduct giving rise to liability. The Court also held that prosecutors, who are under a duty to place before the court any information relevant to the refusal or grant of bail, may be held liable for negligently failing to fulfill that duty.
Die applikant is seksueel aangerand deur 'n man wat verhoorafwagtend was weens die poging tot verkragting van 'n ander vrou. Ondanks die erns van die beweerde misdaad en die feit dat die man 'n vorige skuldigbevinding aan verkragting gehad het, het die polisie en aanklaer aanbeveel dat die man vrygelaat word afhangende verhoor. Die applikant het die Minister vir skadevergoeding gedagvaar, met die argument dat die polisie en aanklaers hul plig versuim het en nalatig was om stappe te doen om te voorkom dat die man haar skade berokken. Dit was hul wettige plig wat hul aan haar verskuldig was om stappe te doen om te voorkom dat die man haar skade berokken. Die Hooggeregshof het die aansoeker se eis van die hand gewys en die Hoogste Appèlhof het bevestig dat die polisie en aanklaers nie 'n beskermings plig aan haar verskuldig is nie. Op appèl het die Konstitusionele Hof die bevele van die laer howe tersyde gestel en die saak weer aan die hooggeregshof voorgelê. Daar is van mening dat die staat deur die Grondwet en die internasionale reg verplig is om die waardigheid en sekuriteit van vroue te beskerm, en in die omstandighede kan die polisie se aanbeveling vir die vrylating van die aanvaller neerkom op onregmatige optrede wat hul aanspreeklikheid tot gevolg het. Die Hof het ook bevind dat aanklaers wat onder die plig is om inligting rakende die weiering of toestaan van borgtog voor die hof te plaas, aanspreeklik gehou kan word vir nalatige versuim om daardie plig na te kom.