## Facts

- John and Dorothy Troppi had seven children and decided, after medical consultation, to prevent further pregnancies.
- Dorothy Troppi’s physician prescribed an oral contraceptive (Norinyl) and telephoned the prescription to Frank H. Scarf, a pharmacist operating Scarf’s Drug Store.
- Scarf negligently dispensed Nardil (a tranquilizer) instead of the prescribed contraceptive.
- Believing she was taking birth control pills, Mrs. Troppi took the dispensed pills daily.
- Mrs. Troppi became pregnant and later delivered a healthy son.
- Plaintiffs sought damages for (1) Mrs. Troppi’s lost wages, (2) medical and hospital expenses, (3) pain and anxiety of pregnancy and childbirth, and (4) the economic costs of rearing the child.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Scarf, reasoning that any damages were offset by the benefit of having a healthy child.

## Issues

1. Whether a pharmacist’s negligent misfilling of a contraceptive prescription, resulting in conception and birth of a healthy child, states a cognizable negligence claim.
2. Whether damages from such negligence are barred as a matter of law or public policy because the outcome was the birth of a healthy child.
3. Whether child-rearing costs may be claimed and, if so, whether any offset for “benefits” is decided as a matter of law or by the fact-finder.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded for trial.
- The complaint adequately alleged duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation based on negligent dispensing of the wrong drug.
- Claimed damages were not categorically barred merely because the negligence resulted in the birth of a healthy child.
- The trial court erred by treating the “benefit” of a healthy child as an automatic legal offset warranting dismissal at the pleading stage.
- Questions concerning any offsetting benefits and the extent of recoverable damages were for the trier of fact.

## Legal Principles

- Ordinary negligence principles apply to pharmacists’ prescription-filling errors, including a duty of due care and liability for foreseeable consequences.
- Public policy does not impose a blanket bar on negligence actions arising from failed contraception that results in the birth of a healthy child.
- Damages directly associated with pregnancy and childbirth (including medical expenses, lost wages, and related pain and suffering) may be recoverable when proximately caused by negligence.
- Child-rearing expenses are not excluded as a matter of law in this context; their recoverability and any offset under the benefit rule are factual questions.
- Parents are not required, as a mitigation measure, to place the child for adoption to limit damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that negligent dispensing of the wrong medication leading to an unintended pregnancy states a negligence claim and that damages—including potentially the costs of rearing the child—cannot be dismissed on the theory that a healthy child’s birth automatically negates compensable harm; the case was remanded for fact-finding on damages and any offsets.


Troppi v. Scarf, 31 Mich. App. 240, 187 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)