dissenting.
In Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. 199, 501 A.2d 1085 (1985), our Supreme Court abandoned the live birth requirement of prior precedent and granted a cause of action on behalf of a stillborn fetus. Although the fetus in Amadio was alleged to have been viable at the time of its injuries, the Court did not establish viability as the moment in time when a fetus attains the status of an individual for purposes of maintaining an action for his or her death. To the extent the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
*415The specific question addressed by the Court in Amadio was “whether a right of recovery exists under our Wrongful Death Act and Survival Statute on behalf of a stillborn child who died as a result of injuries received en ventre sa mere.” 509 Pa. at 201, 501 A.2d at 1085. Viability was never at issue in the case as the stillborn plaintiff was alleged to have been viable at the time of its death.1 Rather, the thrust of Amadio was directed towards the abandonment of prior caselaw mandating the live birth of a child before an action could be brought for its death. This was accomplished in large part by the Court’s utilization of the rationale and holding of Sinkler v. Kneale, 401 Pa. 267, 164 A.2d 93 (1960). As the Court stated:
We have, since our decision in [Sinkler ], recognized that a child en ventre sa mere is a separate individual from the moment of conception, and have permitted that child to sue for injuries received during gestation when the child is born alive. Implicit in our holding in Sinkler is the acknowledgement that a child en ventre sa mere is an individual with the right to be free of prenatal injury. If a child en ventre sa mere is an individual at the time of its injury, then, a fortiori, the child is also an individual when those injuries cause its death, and it makes no difference in liability under the wrongful death and survival statutes whether the child dies of the injuries just prior to or just after birth.
In short, the “live birth” or “still birth” of a child will no longer be determinative of that child’s status as an individual under our survival or wrongful death statutes. To be consistent with Sinkler and the body of medical knowledge underpinning it, we acknowledge a child en ventre sa mere to be an “individual,” “having existence as a separate creature from the moment of conception.” Sinkler, 401 Pa. at 273, 164 A.2d at 96. Henceforth, *416injuries received by a child while en ventre sa mere can form the basis for survival or wrongful death actions as maintained on behalf of a child born alive. Live birth can no longer be a limiting prerequisite to the maintenance of such an action. This is consistent with Mr. Justice Larsen’s dissent in Scott v. Kopp, [494 Pa. 487, 431 A.2d 959 (1981)], where he argues against drawing a line at the birth of a child, its viability, or some other arbitrary period of gestation, and instead concludes that the action should proceed to trial and let the orderly production of evidence by the adversaries prove or disprove causation, injury and damages in each case.
Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. at 204-05, 501 A.2d at 1087.
Appellees, and apparently the majority, dismiss this passage as mere dicta and would find Sinkler inapplicable to the present situation. Appellees reason that the child in Sinkler, though injured in the womb during its first month of gestation, survived and was born alive rendering the case of no moment here. I must disagree. First, a proper reading of Amadio indicates that the use of Sinkler was for more than purposes of persuasion; the Court expanded the holding and rationale of Sinkler to encompass those situations where an injured fetus dies prior to birth. Second, the fact of live birth in Sinkler does not render the case inapplicable here where the Court in Amadio clearly found this distinction no longer determinative of a child’s rights under our wrongful death and survival statutes.2
The majority in the case at bar would limit a wrongful death or survival action brought on behalf of a fetus to those situations where viability is alleged. In support of this requirement, the majority lists as its reasons the problems of proof and a lack of legislative intent. Regarding *417intent, the majority cites our recent decision in Hudak v. Georgy, 390 Pa.Super. 14, 567 A.2d 1095 (1989). In that case, a panel of this Court, by per curiam opinion with Judge Johnson concurring, denied a cause of action on behalf of three non-viable fetuses. The majority reasoned that because the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Statute made no mention of non-viable fetuses, the issue was better left to the legislature. A similar argument was rejected after an extensive discussion by Justice Zappala in his concurring opinion in Amadio where he concluded that it was proper for the Court to interpret these statutes to include a viable still-born fetus. Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. at 222-30, 501 A.2d at 1097-1101 (Zappala, J., concurring). I find such a rationale appropriate and applicable to the facts presented herein.
Moreover, I do not find an alleged difficulty in proving one’s case reason enough to preclude an otherwise valid cause of action, nor do I find support in the rationale of Amadio for this result. Instead, following the natural progression of Sinkler and Amadio, I would allow the parents of the deceased plaintiff the opportunity to prove their case regardless of arbitrary gestation requirements. In so doing, I find the reasoning of Mr. Justice Larsen persuasive:
The alternative of drawing an arbitrary line anywhere is to recognize the cause of action generally while, of course, maintaining the not-insubstantial burden of proving causation in each case. Modern medical science has advanced to such a state that many of the heretofore existent causation gaps can now be closed. That such gaps might remain open in some cases should preclude recovery in those cases for failure to meet the burden of proof of causation, but should not invalidate those causes of action for which expert medical testimony can bridge the gap. Thus, rather than drawing a line at the birth of a child, viability or some arbitrary period of gestation, I would simply allow the action to proceed to trial and let *418the orderly production of evidence by the adversaries draw its own line.
Scott v. Kopp, 494 Pa. at 496, 431 A.2d at 964 (Dissenting Opinion of Larsen, J.) (emphasis in original).
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the order of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Justice Zappala, who drafted an extensive concurring opinion, recognized this fact and specifically reserved decision on the viability requirement. Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. at 230 fn. 7, 501 A.2d at 1101 fn. 7. See also Hudak v. Georgy, 390 Pa.Super. 14, 567 A.2d 1095 (1989) (Amadio decision does not decide the issue of non-viable plaintiffs).
. In his concurring opinion, Justice Zappala emphasized this position. He stated:
... I conclude that the cause of action for prenatal injuries identified in Sinkler v. Kneale accrues to the child upon the occurrence of the injuries without regard to the later live birth of the child and, pursuant to the Survival Act, survives the death of the child whether the death occurs before or after birth.
Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. at 221, 501 A.2d at 1096.