These appeals stem from a medical malpractice action commenced by plaintiffs on March 31, 1975. Two amended complaints were subsequently filed and the nature of the action changed as parties defendant were added and dropped and different theories of liability were presented. When the case stood ready for trial in the spring of 1979, the parties consisted of plaintiffs Gloria and Dennis Eisbrenner, husbаnd and wife, in their own behalf and as representatives of their infant daughter Kari Ann Eisbrenner, and *360 defendant William Frederick Stanley, D.O. Plaintiffs claimed that Kari Ann was born severely deformed because her mother had contracted rubella (German measles) during her pregnancy. They alleged that Dr. Stanley negligently failed to diagnose Mrs. Eisbrenner’s rubella, despite the fact that he had seen test results which indicated she had contracted the disease, and that he negligently failed to warn plaintiffs of the possibility that the child would be born with rubella-caused defects. Plaintiffs contended that had defendant acted properly, he would have informed them of the risk during the first trimester of Mrs. Eisbrenner’s pregnancy and the family would have decided upon an abortion rather than taking a chance on birth defects. The parents sought damages for mental distress and costs of the child’s treatment. Damages were requested on behalf of the child for pain and suffering. Kari Ann had lived for over five years and died shortly before trial. The plaintiffs’ complaint also alleged that Dr. Stanley had negligently delayed delivery of the child; this claim was abandoned at trial.
On April 19, 1979, defendant moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1), claiming that the child’s claim based on a "wrongful life” theory and the parents’ claims for emotional trauma and expensеs did not give rise to any damages cognizable at law. On May 10, 1979, the trial court issued an opinion granting summary judgment in favor of defendant as to the child’s cause of action but denying the motion as to the parents’ claims. The case proceeded to trial and on May 22, 1979, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial was denied and appeals to this Court followed.
*361 In Docket No. 46108, the plaintiff parents appealed, alleging that a number of errors mandating reversal occurred during trial. Defendant cross-appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment as to the parents’ cause of action. Defendant also raised one issue alleging error at trial. In Docket No. 46109, the parents appealed in their capacities as representatives of the deceased child, claiming thаt the trial court erred in granting the defense motion for summary judgment as to the child’s cause of action.
We first address the issues raised in both appeals concerning the propriety of the trial court’s rulings on the summary judgment motion. In holding that the plaintiff child had no cause of action, the court stated:
"There is apparently no remedy in favor of the afflicted child for having been born under a mental , or physical handicap wherе the alternative to such status is not to be born at all. A Plaintiff has no remedy against a Defendant whose sole offense is that he failed to consign the Plaintiff to oblivion.”
However, the court ruled that the parents had stated a valid cause of action based in part upon the defendant physician’s duty to disclose his disgnosis and inform the mother of the risks involved in continuing the pregnancy. Plaintiffs were held entitled to damages for both medicаl expenses and mental distress if they could prove their allegations. The court did state that defendant was under no duty to give counselling on the possibility of a eugenic abortion.
Michigan courts have not dealt directly with the types of actions presented in the instant case, which have sometimes been classified under the
*362
labels of "wrongful life” or "wrongful birth”. Our analysis of the decisions in other jurisdictions begins with
Gleitman v Cosgrove,
49 NJ 22;
The
Gleitman
analysis relating to the child’s cause of action has been followеd by other courts. See
Stewart v Long Island College Hospital, 35
App Div 2d 531;
In
Becker v Schwartz,
"The remedy afforded an injured party in negligenсe is designed to place that party in the position he would have occupied but for the negligence of the defendant. * * * Thus, the damages recoverable on behalf of an infant for wrongful life are limited to that which is necessary to restore the infant to the position he or she would have occupied were it not for the failure of the defendant to render advice to the infant’s parents in a nonnegligent manner. Thе theoretical hurdle to an assertion of damages on behalf of an infant accruing from a defendant’s negligence in such a case becomes at once apparent. The very allegations of the complaint state that had the defendant not been negligent, the infant’s parents would have chosen not to conceive, or having conceived, to have terminated rather than to have carried thе pregnancy to term, therefore depriving the infant plaintiff of his or her very existence. Simply put, a cause of action brought on behalf of an infant seeking recovery for wrongful life demands a calculation of damages dependent upon a comparison between the Hobson’s choice of life in an impaired state and nonexistence. This comparison the law is not equipped *364 to make. * * * Recognition of so novel a cause of action requiring, as it must, creation of a hypothetical formula for the measurement of an infant’s damages is best reserved for legislative, rather than judicial, attention.”46 NY2d 412 (citations omitted).
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in
Berman v Allan,
80 NJ 421;
Other cases reсognizing the parents’ cause of action but not that of the infant under similar factual circumstances include
Gildiner v Thomas Jefferson University Hospital,
"The circumstance that the birth and injury have come hand in hand has caused other courts to deal with the problem by barring recovery. The reality оf the 'wrongful-life’ concept is that such a plaintiff both exists and suffers, due to the negligence of others. It is neither necessary nor just to retreat into meditation on the mysteries of life. We need not be concerned with the fact that had defendants not been negligent, the plaintiff might not have come into existence at all. The certainty of genetic impairment is no longer a mystery. In addition, a reverent appreciation of life compels recognition that plaintiff, however impaired she may be, has come into existence as a living person with certain rights.” 106 Cal App 3d 829; 165 Cal Rptr 488. (Emphasis in original.)
*366 We are not persuaded by the reasoning in Cur-lender. The defendants in that case could not have prevented the genetic defects; the only alternative for the child was nonexistence due to abortion. When only two states are possible, measurement of damages allegedly resulting because one stаte occurred of necessity requires comparison with the only other alternative in determining whether there was a legal detriment. In the instant case, the child’s claim for damages assumes she suffered a detriment by being born defective instead of being aborted. We believe the comparison between nonexistence and deformed life is necessary but impossible to make and juries should not be allowed to speculatе on the child’s damages. Recognition of the child’s cause of action would turn the courts into forums for pure gambling events, since damage awards could range from zero to millions of dollars based on essentially the same evidence. It would make as much sense to award damages based on a throw of the dice. We follow the reasoning in Becker v Schwartz, supra, and affirm the trial court’s decision not to allow the child’s action.
The parents’ claims in the present case do not involve the impossible comparison discussed above. Defendant argues that the element of proximate cause was lacking because his alleged negligence did not cause the child’s abnormalities and no treatment existed which could have prevented them. However, this argument misconstrues the plaintiffs theory. The parents claim that, because defendant breached his duty to rеnder proper medical treatment, they were deprived of information which would have led them to terminate the pregnancy at a stage where abortion was legal. From their point of view, the child was born and *367 lived as a result of defendant’s negligence and we believe that plaintiffs properly alleged proximate cause. The fact that plaintiffs’ theory raises the specter of abortion is not significant sincе the abortion they allegedly would have sought was legal under Roe v Wade, supra. Defendant’s claim that recognition of the parents’ cause of action would force him to terminate the existence of human life is meritless, since he would be under no duty to perform or counsel abortion.
We hold that the trial court properly refused to dismiss the parents’ cause of action and did not err by allowing them to seek damages for both medical expenses and mental distress. In
Troppi v Scarf,
Plaintiffs raised five other issues in Docket No. 46108. They first claim that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony of Gloria Eisbrenner. Mrs. Eisbrennеr had testified earlier in the trial that she contacted Dr. Stanley and expressed her fear of exposure to rubella after learning that her nephew, Tommy, with whom she had recently visited, had broken out in a rash. Defense counsel recalled Mrs. Eisbrenner during his case and questioned her about possible prior exposure to rubella, immunization, her knowledge of rubella symptoms and difficulties encountered in prior pregnancies. He began to question the witness about her earlier statements regarding her suspected exposure to rubella via her nephew. The following colloquy occurred:
"Q. Let me ask it this way. Was it before your sister-in-law then called and told you—
"Mr. Lopatin [plaintiffs’ counsel]: Your Honor, may I take up something in the absence of the jury.
"(Whereupon, the jurors were dismissed.)
"Mr. Lopatin: I am anticipating his next question and it’s rank hearsay, and I object to it. The next question is, is it before your sister told you that Tommy did not have German meаsles, which is hearsay.
"Mr. Ranger [defendant’s counsel]: Not to me.
"Mr. Lopatin: It is to me.
"Mr. Ranger: I mean, it’s not hearsay to this Defendant in this case. I’m not injecting my personality, your Honor, I’m saying that it’s not hearsay to this Defendant.”
Arguments of counsel ensued, and the trial court ultimately ruled the testimony admissible over the hearsay objection, stating:
*369 "The Court: Regardless of how you tear it, the trial of the lawsuit is a search for the truth. A situation has been created in the testimony, so far as the jury is concerned, of the possibility of expоsure to rubella. I think the jury is entitled to hear what she heard to the effect that she was not, and I will permit the question.”
Hearsay is defined in MRE 801(c) as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. After the judge made his ruling, Mrs. Eisbrenner stated that her sister-in-law called her and told her a doctor had said that he did not think Tommy had German measles. This is a сlassic example of double hearsay and the trial court erred by overruling the objection. However, we do not believe that the error mandates reversal. MRE 103(a) states that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. In the present case, part of plaintiffs’ theory was that certain test results indicated that Mrs. Eisbrenner had contracted rubella and defendant negligently failed to inform plaintiffs of the results. The defense theory on this point was that while Mrs. Eisbrenner may have been exposed to rubella, she was immune to the disease and test results reflected that immunity. Plaintiffs never claimed that the nephew was the source of the alleged rubella infection; they only argued that the boy’s rash was the reason Mrs. Eisbrenner consulted Dr. Stanley. It is our opinion that, because the source of the alleged rubella infection was not a disputed question at the trial, admission of the hearsay testimony did not affect the plaintiffs’ substantial rights.
Next, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred *370 in permitting defense counsel to read and comment on plaintiffs’ pleadings during closing argument. At several points during closing argument, defense counsel made reference to the fact that plaintiffs had filed amended complaints in which the theories of liability changed and had originally nаmed another doctor and a hospital as defendants. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected on the ground that the pleadings had never been offered into evidence and the trial judge overruled the objection, stating that the files were part of the case. On appeal, plaintiffs claim that any reading from the pleadings was improper and that the argument made by defense counsel was improper because it implied that plaintiffs’ case was not worthy of belief because of the amendments.
Our review of the transcript indicates that while defense counsel referred to the pleadings, he did not read them to the jury. Statements of fact contained in pleadings constitute admissions, GCR 1963, 604; MRE 801(d)(2)(C). The trial court did not err in allowing defense counsel to comment on the statements in the pleadings.
Vachon v Todorovich,
The nature of the disputed argument presents a different question. No objection was made below on the basis that the remarks constituted improper innuendo; therefore, absent manifest injustice, reversal on this ground is not justified.
Taylor v Lowe,
"Complaint is also made of the remarks of counsel and, we think, justly. It is not proper to interject irrelevant remarks, calculated, if not designed, to prejudice the jury upon the merits of the case. A litigant has a right to a fair trial, and such conduct is unfair, and should be promptly suppressed. Nearly every term of court some case is presented where this practice has been indulged in, and we are sometimes forced to think that there is method in it, and that the reluctance of the court to reverse cases, for reasons not clearly shown to have done injury, is presumed upon, though in most cases (as in the present) we are charitable enough to ascribe it to overzeal, heat, or provocation by opposing counsel. The practice is not еthical, and should be avoided.”
We decline to reverse on this ground due to the lack of a proper objection or a request for a curative instruction, the fact that one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys explained the amendments in his rebuttal argument and the fact that the jury was instructed that remarks of counsel were not evidence.
The remaining issues raised by plaintiffs involve the trial court’s decisions concerning the testimony оf expert witnesses, the admissibility of a film and the conduct of rebuttal and surrebuttal. We have reviewed the record and find, with one exception, no error in the court’s handling of these matters. The exception occurred where the judge permitted defense counsel to question Dr. Chasom during surrebuttal about a statement of another witness, Dr. Sillery, which had been made outside the presence of the jury, that Dr. Chasom had agreed that the infant’s brain was a typical rubella brain. *372 Defense counsel asked Dr. Chasom if he had made the statement and he denied it. We conclude error occurred but that it was harmless pursuant to GCR 1963, 529.1 and MRE 103(a). The trial lasted over two weeks and the improper question was isolated. We do not believe the question and answer affected the outcome of the case.
We need not consider the other issue raised by defendant in Docket No. 46108.
Affirmed. No costs, neither party prevailing in full.