Dobson v Dobson SCC
案情很简单，一位孕妇在公路上自身操作不慎所以导致婴儿出生后有先天残疾，婴儿的家人将母亲告上法庭，明面上的起诉理由是认为母亲应该对伤害胎儿的产前疏忽行为造成的子女损害承担民事侵权责任，事实上是想通过胜诉来获得来自被告母亲的巨额理赔，这位母亲当然是没有这么多钱的，所以最后会是母亲的保险公司来出这笔钱。争议焦点是母亲有没有对胎儿的duty of care呢？SCC出了三份判决，虽然最后majority的意见采用了Cory的判决（他认为是没有的），但是我觉得另一位法官McLachlin的核心逻辑写得最好，这是只有女法官才写得出来的判词：
“Yet it should not be forgotten that the pregnant woman -- in addition to being the carrier of the foetus within her -- is also an individual whose bodily integrity, privacy and autonomy rights must be protected. Establishing a duty of care between pregnant woman and the foetus would violate pregnant woman's rights under the Charter – specifically the right to liberty and equality.The unique and special relationship between a mother‑to‑be and her foetus determines the outcome of this appeal. There is no other relationship in the realm of human existence which can serve as a basis for comparison. Women should not be penalized because it is their sex that bears children. To say that broad legal constraints on the conduct of pregnant women do not constitute unequal treatment because women choose to become pregnant is to reinforce inequality by the fiction of deemed consent and the denial of what it is to be a woman. Such after‑the‑fact judicial scrutiny of the subtle and complicated factors affecting a woman’s pregnancy may make life for women who are pregnant or who are merely contemplating pregnancy intolerable. The best course, therefore, is to allow the duty of a mother to her foetus to remain a moral obligation which, for the vast majority of women, is already freely recognized and respected without compulsion by law.”
当时读完这个，怎么港，1999年的案子，就觉得好嫉妒你们啊，加拿大人