Question

Verona Meyer was employed by Sonrise at Burger King. On April 26, 1995 during the course of her employment, she lost her footing and struck her lower abdomen on the corner of a table. Later that evening, Verona went to the hospital and delivered a baby, Patricia. In April 1998, the Meyers, on behalf of themselves and their daughter filed a suit against Sonrise for negligence and unsafe working conditions. The Washington Supreme Court in this case, upholding Patricia’s right to a remedy because she is a person exercising her retroactive right to recover for prenatal injuries:​Question 25 options:​did not recognize fetus as a person in the whole sense.​agreed that the fetus’ injury occurred simultaneously with the mother’s.​expressly agreed to allow the employer to bar pregnant employees from the workplace.​ruled her case as vexatious litigation against the employer.

Answer 1

As the Washington Supreme Court in this case, upholding Patricia’s right to a remedy because she is a person exercising her retroactive right to recover for prenatal injuries did not infer anything about the fetus, hence option a) did not recognize fetus as a person in the whole sense is correct.

In the case mentioned in the question, Verona Meyers was attributed to an accident in the company when she was pregnant. However, when the Washington Supreme Court made the decision they did not mention anything about the baby due to which the fetus was not recognized as a person in the whole case. Hence, option a is correct.

Although the court granted Patricia a remedy because of her right and to recover from prenatal injuries, the fetus remained unrecognized in the whole case.

To learn more about fetus, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/5180023

#SPJ4