| 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.” |
> 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).