Facts
- Carole Burke, already the mother of three children and under financial strain, sought permanent sterilization to avoid having more children and to return to work.
- Mrs. Burke consulted Dr. Elliot Rivo, an obstetrician-gynecologist, about sterilization; the plaintiffs alleged he recommended bipolar cauterization tubal ligation and guaranteed it would prevent future pregnancy.
- Dr. Rivo performed a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation by bipolar cauterization in February 1984.
- In June 1985, a pregnancy test confirmed Mrs. Burke was pregnant; she gave birth to a fourth child in February 1986.
- The child was normal and healthy; the parents claimed the pregnancy and birth were unintended and economically harmful.
- The plaintiffs asserted two theories: negligence in performing the sterilization and breach of a guarantee of sterility.
- The trial court reported a question of law under Mass. R. Civ. P. 64 concerning the proper measure of damages; liability had not been determined.
Issues
- What categories of damages are recoverable when a negligently performed sterilization or breach of a sterility guarantee results in the birth of a normal, healthy child?
- Specifically, may parents recover the reasonable costs of raising the child to adulthood, and if so, must those costs be reduced by the benefits of having the child?
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court held that, if liability is proved, parents may recover the reasonable costs of rearing the child to adulthood as a component of damages.
- Any award for child-rearing costs must be reduced by the benefit, if any, the parents receive or will receive from having the child.
- The court answered the reported question and remanded for further proceedings; it did not decide negligence, breach, or the amount of damages on the facts.
Legal Principles
- Damages in negligence and breach of contract generally aim to place the plaintiff in as good a position as if the wrong had not occurred, so far as money can do so.
- In failed-sterilization or wrongful pregnancy actions involving a normal, healthy child, foreseeable economic consequences may include the reasonable costs of raising the child to adulthood.
- The “benefit rule” permits reduction of damages by benefits caused by the same conduct; child-rearing damages must therefore be offset by the value of benefits of parenthood the parents actually experience.
- Public policy does not categorically bar child-rearing damages merely because the child is healthy; the actionable wrong is the physician’s alleged negligence or breach, not the child’s existence.
Conclusion
Massachusetts permits recovery of child-rearing expenses to adulthood for the birth of a normal, healthy child following an allegedly negligent sterilization or breached guarantee, but requires the trier of fact to offset those costs by the benefits of having the child; the case was remanded because liability and damages remained to be proved.