Jean Ho-Rath v. Corning Incorporated Yendee Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital

Syllabus

Jean Ho-Rath et al. v. Corning Incorporated et al. Yendee Ho-Rath et al. v. Rhode Island Hospital et al., Nos. 20-227, 20-228 (May 27, 2022)<br><br>In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiffs challenged the hearing justice's ruling on the defendants' motions for summary judgment and contended that the hearing justice erred in finding that the defendants owed plaintiffs no duty of care. The Supreme Court first determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a new cause of action that required a different legal analysis and, accordingly, reviewed the case in accordance with the traditional principles of negligence. <br><br>The Supreme Court concluded, based on the facts of the case in conjunction with Rhode Island law and the prevailing view of jurisdictions that have considered the same issue, that no duty is owed to a child born with physical defects who alleges that, because of negligence, the child's parents either (1) decided to conceive the child in ignorance of the risk of impairment, or (2) were deprived of information that would have caused them to terminate the pregnancy. The Supreme Court held that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that all of the plaintiffs' claims failed as a matter of law. <br><br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Superior Court. <br><br>