Renslow v. Mennonite Hospital
Illinois Supreme Court
367 N.E.2d 1250 (1977)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Emma Renslow (plaintiff) had Rh-negative blood. When Renslow was 13 years old, she received two blood transfusions from Mennonite Hospital (defendant), both of which contained Rh-positive blood. Renslow did not suffer any physical reaction to the Rh-positive blood, but the transfusion sensitized her blood. Eight years later, Renslow discovered her sensitization when she received prenatal care during pregnancy. Renslow’s blood condition jeopardized the life of her baby and made it necessary for Renslow to give birth prematurely to her child. Renslow’s baby suffered brain damage, and damage to her nervous system and other organs. Renslow, individually and on behalf of her child, Leah, sued the hospital for negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court reasoned that the hospital did not owe a duty of care toward Leah because Leah was not conceived at the time of the hospital’s allegedly negligent transfusions. Renslow appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a duty arose between the hospital and Leah because the risk of the transfusions’ harm to Renslow’s future child was reasonably foreseeable. The hospital appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moran, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
