Cross-plaintiff father sought review of a judgment

[Anne E. Tyner]

Procedural Posture

Cross-plaintiff father sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that dismissed his cross-complaint against cross-defendant mother in which he sought to recover general and punitive damages from cross-defendant for the alleged wrongful birth of their child.

Overview

Cross-defendant mother, her minor child, and a guardian ad litem brought a paternity suit against cross-plaintiff father. After admitting paternity, cross-plaintiff filed a cross-complaint for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence, alleging that cross-defendant had falsely represented that she was taking birth control pills, and that in reliance upon such representation, he engaged in sexual intercourse with her.   First-Degree Murder define as a crime that is defined in a state's statute. However, the exact definition will vary by jurisdiction. Cross-plaintiff alleged that as a proximate result of cross-defendant's conduct, he had become obligated to support the child and had suffered mental agony and distress. Cross-plaintiff also sought punitive damages. Cross-defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court treated the motion as a general demurrer to the cross-complaint and ordered the action dismissed. The court affirmed the judgment. As between two consenting sexual partners, cross-plaintiff could not hold cross-defendant liable in tort for the birth of a child conceived in an act of intercourse where he relied on cross-defendant's false representation that contraceptive measures had been taken. The court found that, for public policy reasons, the court should not interfere.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment dismissing cross-plaintiff father's cross-complaint against cross-defendant mother in which he sought to recover general and punitive damages from cross-defendant for the alleged wrongful birth of their child. The court held that cross-plaintiff could not hold cross-defendant liable in tort for the birth of their child where he relied on her false representation that contraceptive measures had been taken.