Civil Liability for the Wrongful Death of an Unborn Child:
HB 1517 would expand Florida’s wrongful death law to expressly recognize the parents of an unborn child as “survivors” who may recover damages when an unborn child is killed by a wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty. The bill also defines “unborn child” broadly as a member of Homo sapiens at any stage of development carried in the womb. In addition, it allows each parent of a deceased unborn child to recover for mental pain and suffering, similar to the treatment already given to parents of a deceased minor child.
The bill also makes clear that a wrongful death action for an unborn child may not be brought against the mother or against a medical provider for lawful medical care provided in compliance with the applicable standard of care, including assisted reproductive technologies performed with the mother’s consent. It further limits estate-related damages by excluding certain recovery provisions when the decedent is an unborn child, while preserving the general wrongful death framework for other cases. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 1517 would amend Florida Statutes sections 768.18, 768.19, and 768.21, changing the state’s wrongful death definitions, who may sue, and what damages may be recovered. It would create a statutory definition of unborn child, add unborn-child parents to the list of survivors, and authorize parental noneconomic damages in those cases. It also provides liability protections for mothers and for medical providers delivering lawful care, including fertility-related treatment, and adjusts estate-damage provisions to account for unborn-child cases.
The bill appears to have been framed as an expansion of civil remedies for parents of unborn children and a clarification of wrongful death law. However, the available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, and the bill ultimately died in the Senate Rules Committee. That suggests the measure did not advance far enough to generate a documented floor debate or a clear recorded consensus.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s recognition of an unborn child as a wrongful-death decedent and the breadth of the definition, which could affect abortion-related policy debates, fetal personhood concerns, and civil liability exposure. Another likely issue is the carveout protecting mothers and medical providers, including assisted reproductive technology providers, which may have been intended to limit unintended consequences but could still raise questions about scope and application. Supporters would likely emphasize parental remedies and accountability, while opponents may have viewed the bill as legally and politically sensitive because of its implications for reproductive rights and medical practice.