## Facts

- A couple sought evaluation of their first child, Hope, for possible hearing impairment at a hospital rehabilitation center.
- A licensed audiologist/speech and hearing specialist negligently evaluated Hope and incorrectly reported normal hearing, though Hope was totally deaf due to a hereditary disorder.
- Relying on that advice, the parents conceived a second child, Joy, before Hope’s hereditary deafness was correctly diagnosed.
- Hope was later determined to be totally deaf from a hereditary condition; Joy was born totally deaf from the same condition.
- Joy, through a guardian ad litem, alleged that competent diagnosis and counseling would have informed her parents of the hereditary risk and they would not have conceived or given birth to her.
- Joy sought damages based on being born with profound disability and for the extraordinary expenses associated with her condition, including specialized education, training, and equipment.

## Issues

1. Whether a child born with a hereditary affliction may bring a tort claim for “wrongful life” based on preconception negligence that deprived the parents of an informed choice to avoid conception or birth.
2. If such a claim exists, whether the child may recover (a) general damages for being born impaired rather than not born, and/or (b) special damages for extraordinary medical, educational, and related costs attributable to the impairment.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court recognized a limited wrongful life cause of action where negligent diagnosis or genetic counseling deprived the parents of the opportunity to avoid conception or birth.
- The court held the child may recover special damages only: extraordinary expenses for care and special needs resulting from the hereditary condition, to the extent those costs are not recovered by the parents.
- The court rejected general damages because courts cannot rationally value impaired life against nonexistence.
- The judgment sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to allow amendment limited to special damages.

## Legal Principles

- Health-care professionals involved in diagnosis and reproductive/genetic counseling owe a duty of reasonable care; breach supporting foreseeable reproductive decision-making consequences can support liability.
- A wrongful life claim is cognizable only to the extent it seeks measurable economic harm (extraordinary disability-related expenses), not damages premised on comparing life with impairment to nonexistence.
- General damages (e.g., pain and suffering for being born impaired) are unavailable in wrongful life actions because no non-arbitrary standard exists to assess that comparison.
- Special damages for extraordinary costs of medical care, specialized education, and related needs are recoverable, subject to limits preventing double recovery with parental claims.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a child born with a hereditary disability to sue for preconception diagnostic malpractice, but confined recovery to extraordinary, quantifiable expenses caused by the disability and barred general damages that would require valuing nonexistence over impaired life.


Turpin v. Sortini, 31 Cal. 3d 220 (Cal. 1982)