To the contrary, recent decisions of twelve jurisdictions have served to transform what was, until 1950, the heavy majority into the minority view. The citations of these cases follow:
Amann v. Faidy, 1953, 415 Ill. 422, 114 N. E. 2d 412; Bonbrest v. Kotz, D. C., 1946, 65 F. Supp. 138; Verkennes v. Corniea, 1949, 229 Minn. 365, 38 N. W. 2d 838, 10 A. L. R. 2d 634; Jasinsky v. Potts, 1950, 153 Ohio St. 529, 92 N. E. 2d 809; Woods v. Lancet, 1951, 303 N. Y. 349, 102 N. E. 2d 691; Damasiewicz v. Gorsuch, 1951, 197 Md. 417, 79 A. 2d 550; Tucker v. Howard L. Carmichael & Sons, Inc., 1951, 208 Ga. 201, 65 S. E. 2d 909; Steggal v. Morris, 1953, 363 Mo. 1224, 258 S. W. 2d 577; Tursi v. New England Windsor Company, 1955, 19 Conn. Sup. 242, 111 A. 2d 14; Mallison v. Pomeroy, 1955, 205 Or. 690, 291 P. 2d 225; Rainey v. Horn, 1950, 221 Miss. 269, 72 So. 2d 434; Mitchell v. Couch, Ky. 1955, 285 S. W. 2d 901.*
Nearly all these Courts repudiate the theory of the Dietrich case to the effect that a viable foetus is part of its mother and has no separate existence apart from her body. All of them hold that a viable foetus injured or killed by the negligence of another is entitled to sue either on its own behalf or through an administrator, depending upon whether it survived the accident. Leading text writers have also condemned the rationale of the Dietrich case. Thus, Prosser, Law of Torts, (2d Ed.) 1955, p. 174, has this to say:
“All writers who have discussed the problem have joined in condemning the old rule, in maintaining that the unborn child in the path of an automobile is as much a person in the street as the mother, and in urging that recovery should be allowed upon proper proof.
“This criticism has at last had its effect. Beginning with a decision in the District of Columbia in 1946, a series of cases,
*
Cooper v. Blanch, La. App., 39 So. 2d 352 and Montreal Tramways v. Leveille, 4 D. L. R. 337 (Canada) 1933, are frequently cited for this proposition. They do so hold but the construction of special statutes relating to the civil law places them in a separate category.