'causing injury' is an interesting thing to prove, since without the sperm the girl would not exist. Conflating the parties involved with the transaction being

'causing injury' is an interesting thing to prove, since without the sperm the girl would not exist. Conflating the parties involved with the transaction being made (one of the parties _is_ the transaction) is sure to throw a monkey wrench into liability laws. This should be fun. I'm not a judge, but if I was I would sidestep the whole issue by throwing this out because the girl has no grounds to bring a suit: her mother does. Then it falls neatly back into existing legal frameworks: did the sperm bank fulfill its obligation in the transaction? --------- On further reading.. "..under a product liability law more commonly associated with manufacturing defects" Damnit where is the wikipedia of law? Can't they at least _name_ the law, "US Code Title XII Section 5 Subparagraph Whatever.."