Is a plaintiff entitled to recover damages for prenatal injuries sustained by an unborn child?

In People v. Belous (1969) 71 Cal.2d 954, 968, 80 Cal.Rptr. 354, 363, 458 P.2d 193, 194, we observed 'there are major and decisive areas where the embryo and fetus are not treated as equivalent to the born child.' Indeed, such equivalence is the exception rather than the rule. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Roe v. Wade (1973) supra, 410 U.S. 113, 161, 162, 93 S.Ct.

Page 106

The law of California on these questions is statutory. Recovery is permitted for prenatal injuries by a child who is born alive, solely because the action falls within the terms of Civil Code section 29. That section provides generally that 'A child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person, sof ar as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth; . . .' Among the 'interests' of the child under this statute is the right to compensation for personal injuries inflicted by the intentional or negligent conduct of another. (Scott v. McPheeters (1939) supra, 33 Cal.App.2d 629, 630--632, 92 P.2d 678, 93 P.2d 562.)