831 P.2d 1197] (“Any negligence during delivery which causes injury to the fetus and resultant emotional anguish to the mother, therefore, breaches a duty owed directly to the mother”), Zavala also argued she had properly pleaded a “direct victim” claim for emotional distress damages. C. The Court’s Summary Judgment Ruling in Favor of Dr. Arce On September 30, 1994, the court issued a telephonic ruling granting Dr. Arce’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling, however, was silent with respect to Zavala’s claim for “direct victim” emotional distress damages. The court construed the first cause of action for medical malpractice to be a wrongful death claim which was barred as a matter of law by the California Supreme Court’s decision in Justus v. Atchison, supra, 19 Cal.3d at page 580 (<HOLDING>). On October 14, 1994, the court entertained
holding a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child holding that action for wrongful death may generally not be maintained where death was selfinflicted holding that a failure to include a beneficiary in a wrongful death action is a defect because the wrongful death act restricts plaintiffs to a single action holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute recognizing cause of action for wrongful death