REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2971 Wrongful birth or wrongful life claims; prohibitions; exceptions.
Sec. 2971.
(1) A person shall not bring a civil action on a wrongful birth claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.
(2) A person shall not bring a civil action for damages on a wrongful life claim that, but for the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the person bringing the action would not or should not have been born.
(3) A person shall not bring a civil action for damages for daily living, medical, educational, or other expenses necessary to raise a child to the age of majority, on a wrongful pregnancy or wrongful conception claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the child would not or should not have been conceived.
(4) The prohibition stated in subsection (1), (2), or (3) applies regardless of whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition. The prohibition stated in subsection (1), (2), or (3) does not apply to a civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including, but not limited to, an act or omission that violates the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 to 750.568.
History: Add. 2000, Act 423, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 423 of 2000 provides:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory applies only to cause of action arising on or after the effective date of amendatory act.”
Notes of Decisions
Cichewicz v. Salesin (2014)
michctapp · cites it 34×
“In June 2012, defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff could not establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether any alleged act or omission of Salesin constituted gross negligence as required by MCL 600.2971 in *18…”
Willis Ex Rel. Willis v. Wu (2004)
sc
“Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2971 (statute enacted in 2001 generally prohibits wrongful life and wrongful birth actions).”
Chaya Grossbaum v. Genesis Genetics Inst LLC (2012)
ca3
“As the District Court found, an actual conflict exists here: Michigan bars all variations of the claims asserted by the Grossbaums, see Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2971 , whereas the New Jersey and New York statutes of limitations for medical malpractice claims differ in both…”
Morgan v. Wayne County (2020)
mied · cites it 2×
“5805 (10); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2971 . Moreover, the standards governing the accrual of Morgan’s federal and state law claims are essentially the same, and there is no dispute that her claim accrued in 2005.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2971(1) — 1 case
Cichewicz v. Salesin (2014)
michctapp
“In June 2012, defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff could not establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether any alleged act or omission of Salesin constituted gross negligence as required by MCL 600.2971 in *18…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2971(3) — 1 case
Cichewicz v. Salesin (2014)
michctapp
“In June 2012, defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff could not establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether any alleged act or omission of Salesin constituted gross negligence as required by MCL 600.2971 in *18…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2971(4) — 1 case
Cichewicz v. Salesin (2014)
michctapp
“In June 2012, defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff could not establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether any alleged act or omission of Salesin constituted gross negligence as required by MCL 600.2971 in *18…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.