## Facts

- Dr. Glen H. Aasheim performed a tubal ligation on Karen J. McKernan in March 1980.
- Despite the procedure, Karen became pregnant and later delivered a healthy, normal child.
- Karen and her husband sued, alleging negligent performance of the sterilization, lack of informed consent, breach of warranty of permanent sterilization, and violation of Karen’s right to avoid pregnancy.
- The parents sought multiple categories of damages, including pregnancy and childbirth costs, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and the costs of rearing and educating the child.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing only the claim for child-rearing and educational expenses.
- The Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review limited to the availability of those child-related expenses.

## Issues

1. When a healthy, normal child is born after an unsuccessful sterilization, may parents recover tort damages for the costs of rearing and educating the unplanned child?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the partial summary judgment for the defendant.
- The court held that parents of a healthy, normal but unplanned child may not recover the costs of rearing and educating that child.
- The decision did not resolve liability or the availability of other damages (e.g., pregnancy-related medical expenses, pain and suffering, or loss of consortium).
- The holding was limited to healthy, normal children and did not decide cases involving children born with disabilities or extraordinary needs.

## Legal Principles

- In failed-sterilization (“wrongful pregnancy”) cases resulting in a healthy, normal child, public policy bars recovery of child-rearing and educational expenses.
- Courts will not require a factfinder to compare the economic costs of raising a child against the intangible benefits of parenthood, because the inquiry is speculative and incompatible with the value placed on the parent-child relationship.
- Damage awards for long-term child-rearing costs are considered too uncertain and variable to be proved with reasonable certainty in this context.
- The “benefits rule” (offsetting child-rearing costs by the perceived benefits of the child) is rejected as an improper judicial valuation of whether a child’s life is “worth its cost.”
- Concerns about potential emotional harm to the child from being characterized as unwanted support denying recovery for rearing and education costs.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court held that, as a matter of public policy, parents cannot recover the costs of rearing and educating a healthy, normal child born after an unsuccessful sterilization, and it affirmed partial summary judgment dismissing that damages claim.


McKernan v. Aasheim, 687 P.2d 850 (Wash. 1984)