[sph87]

Moot mean “open to discussion”.

We reverse the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims in both appeals (regarding the born/unborn). Because the plaintiffs' alternative negligence and wantonness claims are now moot (open for discussion), we affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims on that basis.

[LeafItAlone]

It means that those claims don’t matter anymore because of the decision on another. Because of Decision A, Claim 2 doesn’t apply anymore. The negligence claim was a back up in case the court found that the embryos were not children. Because they were found to be children, the negligence claim was no longer relevant and therefore dismissed.

[sph87]

Here is the text of the law: (I paraphrased the recourse portion)

If the death of a minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person, persons, or corporation, or the servants or agents of either then (people can sue)

You need all three elements: 1) Death 2) Child 3) Wrongful Act/Neglience

If 1 AND 2 AND 3 then ACTION

Trial found 1 true, 2 and 3 false. Ala SC said actually 2 is true, but 3 is still false.

Your reading makes no sense. “Yea its a child, so it doesn’t matter if there was negligence”. No. You need all 3.

They said: “We find lower court was wrong, 2 is reversed and now true. Since this now makes clause 3 open to discussion, we affirm that they were right in saying 3 was false. As a result the case is dismissed.”

[LeafItAlone]

I'm honestly not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or you just haven't read the opinion.

> Each set of plaintiffs asserted claims under Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, § 6-5- 391. In the alternative, each set of plaintiffs asserted common-law claims of negligence (in the LePages and Fondes' case) or negligence and wantonness (in the Aysennes' case), for which they sought compensatory damages, including damages for mental anguish and emotional distress.

(page 5)

Note: "In the alternative"

There were two claims:

1. They claim coverage by the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

2. They provide an alternative, so that if the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does _not_ apply, they claim negligence.

These are two separate claims. The ruling states that since Claim 1 does apply (frozen embryos do fall under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act), then Claim 2 is no longer relevant, because it was only relevant if Claim 1 did not apply. Therefore Claim 2, is dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision _on that claim_ (but not the full case).

[sph87]

Right, but by upholding that there was no negligence in the alternative case they prevent the conditions in Wrongful Death of a Minor from being met. There is nothing left to argue.

Are you suggesting the lower court now over rules the upper court and say there was negligence? The upper court has already said there wasn’t. Just because it was settled in a side branch doesn’t reverse the decision or leave it up for discussion.

[LeafItAlone]

I now believe that you just don't understand how the courts work.