Drobner V. Lancet Case

1. The issue in this case is if the Drobner v. Peters case should be used as a precedent to dismiss the Woods v. Lancet case, that is whether or not an infant plaintiff could recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the mother’s womb during the ninth month of pregnancy resulting in serious injuries, permanently damaging the infant. Citing Drobner v. Peters, the Special Term granted the motion and dismissed the suit on the grounds that infant plaintiff’s failed to state a cause of action, thus taking the position that its allegations, though true, gave the infant no right to recover damages in the courts of New York. The defendant also claimed that there was no medical evidence that proved the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from her …show more content…
This case is a good example of Stare Decisis because the Trial Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition because of lack of recognizable cause of action, citing Drobner v. Peters as its precedent which was decided 30 years ago. “Stare Decisis” is a legal doctrine that obligates the courts to follow a precedent or historical case for making a ruling on a similar current or future case. Unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as US Supreme Court, Stare Decisis ensures that when presented with cases with identical facts, a precedent needs to be considered to make a ruling. However, the New York Court Of Appeals overruled its Drobner’s precedent alleging that plaintiff’s complaint did establish the cause of action. Due to this, Woods v. Lancet became a new precedent for all cases presenting similar issues that followed. Moreover, Woods v. Lancet should be able to provide more concrete proof than the Drober v. Peters case …show more content…
Courts refer to cases in other jurisdictions and even other countries in an attempt to make the law and court systems more predictable. This gives lawyers and judges an idea as to what to expect the outcome of cases to be.According to the Common law, when making judicial decisions judges are obliged to make their rulings based on a precedent in order to make the ruling as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject. In this case, Drobner v. Peters was the precedent for Woods v. Lancet but the former did not have any precedents. However, in Woods v. Lancet case the precedent was not relevant as the ruling was the opposite of the precedent. If the cases are very relevant, the outcomes should be about the same. The problem comes when a precedent case is deemed relevant, but does not seem to be when all the facts are looked at in