HomeMy WebLinkAbout1894 l
and yet shift the entire cost of its upbringing to a physician.
Coleman v. Garrison, 349 At1.2d 8 (Del. 1975). Accord: Carol v.
Garcia, 496 SW 2d 124 (Tex. 1973); Christenson v. Thornby, 255 j
NW 620 (Minn. 1934); Shaheen v. Knight, 11 Pa. D.C. 2d 41 Penn.
1951); Clegg v. Chase, 391 NYS 2d 966 (1977); Reich v. Medical
Protective Co., 219 NW 2d 242 (Wis. 1974); Gleitman v. Cosgrove,
227 Atl. 2d 689 (NJ 1967). Therefore, paragraph 7 in Count II
and paragraph 5 in the prayer for judgment of Count II is hereby
stricken.
The Defendants have moved to strike the claim for
punitive damages. There are no allegations against the Defendant
~ physician which, if true, would warrant recovery of punitive
damages. Therefore, paragraph 2 in the prayer for judgment of
Count I is stricken and paragraph 6 in the prayer for judgment
of Count II is stricken.
The Plaintiff parents seek, on behalf of other siblings
to the unplanned child, damages for the diminishment of each
child's portion of the care, affection and training which allegedly
as occurred because the children have acquired a baby sister.
f
No such cause of action exist. Aronoff v. Smider, 292 So.2d 418
e
f (2nd Dist. 1974). Therefore, Count III is stricken and dismissed
in its entirety.
That part of paragraph 5, contained in Count IV which
reads: "And has further lost the income from the beauty parlor
which she does not have the time to operate since the new child
consumes a major portion of her spare time" is stricken. That
part of the prayer for judgment contained in paragraph 1 of Count
IV which reads, "For loss of income from her beauty parlor," is
i stricken. Conner v. Atlas Sircraft Corp., 310 So.2d 352 (3rd Dist.
1975). It is conceded by the Plaintiffs that the beauty shop never
existed as an ongoing business.
Page 2 s
R ~ o? I $q4
qa,~,3
y .F.~Ye~
YY -e - Y.r