Comments on: Strict Liability for Sperm? http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/08/04/strict-liability-for-sperm/ News and analysis from the intersection of genomics, personalized medicine and the law Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:02:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Genomics » Green Patent Blog® » Blog Archive » ExxonMobil Partners with ... http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/08/04/strict-liability-for-sperm/comment-page-1/#comment-89 Genomics » Green Patent Blog® » Blog Archive » ExxonMobil Partners with ... Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:07:52 +0000 http://www.genomicslawreport.com/?p=572#comment-89 [...] Strict Liability for Sperm?Adam Doerr represents companies and individuals involved in litigation, with an interest in the complex privacy, liability, and other legal issues arising from the field of genomics. Lawrence C. Moore, III … [...] [...] Strict Liability for Sperm?Adam Doerr represents companies and individuals involved in litigation, with an interest in the complex privacy, liability, and other legal issues arising from the field of genomics. Lawrence C. Moore, III … [...]

]]> By: ryan http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/08/04/strict-liability-for-sperm/comment-page-1/#comment-72 ryan Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:55:05 +0000 http://www.genomicslawreport.com/?p=572#comment-72 In this instance, it holds that Idant laboratory was negligent. It's fair to assume that this is settled at this point. it's merely of whether or not such negligence should be held accountable. Would anyone agree that they SHOULDN'T be held accountable in some way? Perhaps the judges in New York know this. And that merely because of a flurry of legal barriers, Donovan isn't in a position to hold them liable. Maybe, just maybe, the system is allowing such a stretch (strict product liability on sperm) to facilitate some justice where some is due. Would you agree? IMHO, a rare instance where the logic of justice is holding its ground despite legal obfuscations. In this instance, it holds that Idant laboratory was negligent. It’s fair to assume that this is settled at this point. it’s merely of whether or not such negligence should be held accountable.

Would anyone agree that they SHOULDN’T be held accountable in some way?

Perhaps the judges in New York know this. And that merely because of a flurry of legal barriers, Donovan isn’t in a position to hold them liable. Maybe, just maybe, the system is allowing such a stretch (strict product liability on sperm) to facilitate some justice where some is due. Would you agree?

IMHO, a rare instance where the logic of justice is holding its ground despite legal obfuscations.

]]>