| Venue: | RI SC |
| Facts: | The Emersons have a child, decide they don't want more (for financial reasons). Mrs. Emerson has tubal ligation, but it doesn't work. They have another child, who turns out to have congenital issues (i.e., not caused by the tubal ligation). |
| Posture: | There seems to have been a suit, but it's not clear if there even was a verdict at trial, from the materials we've got. Might just be a question "certified" to the court? |
| Issue: | Two:
|
| Holding: | Yes, and you can recover for basically everything but emotional distress associated with the birth of a healthy child. Oh, and also not the costs of raising the child to maturity... |
| Rule: | 1: Negligent performance of a sterilization procedure is a tort for
which recovery can be allowed. If a physician is on notice that
children would be disabled, the damages might include the full
cost of raising the child.
2: The "limited benefit rule" covers medical expenses (of the failed sterilaztion, the sequel to make it stick, the pregnancy, prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care), loss of wages, and loss of consortium. |
| Reasoning: | Just traditional tort principles, really. But we're not going to do emotional stuffs. R2T § 920 suggests offsetting the damages by any benefits conferred. Children are a joy. Plus, it's not possible to say at this stage whether there was a net loss or gain. (!?!) And anyway, the fact that the parents are keeping the child, instead of giving for adoption, says that they're happy on balance. (!?!?!) |
| Dicta: | Dissent: This is just medical malpractice. The "joy" factor is a conclusionary deception by the court. Women have a constitutional right to make choices about having children. |