Burke v. Rivo
551 N.E.2d 1, 406 Mass. 764 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parents who undergo a sterilization procedure for economic reasons may recover from a negligent physician the costs of raising a resulting healthy, but unplanned, child. These damages, however, must be offset by the benefits the parents derive from the child's companionship and society.
Facts:
- Carole Burke and her husband were experiencing financial difficulties and did not want to have more children.
- In December 1983, Carole Burke met with the defendant physician to discuss sterilization, which she sought to support her family and fulfill career goals.
- The Burkes allege the physician recommended a bipolar cauterization procedure and guaranteed it would prevent any future pregnancy.
- In February 1984, the defendant performed the sterilization procedure on Carole Burke.
- In June 1985, a pregnancy test confirmed that Carole Burke was pregnant.
- On February 12, 1986, she gave birth to a healthy, normal fourth child.
- A subsequent medical examination revealed that her left fallopian tube had recanalized, which was the cause of the failed sterilization.
- The Burkes asserted they would have chosen a different, more certain sterilization procedure if the physician had properly informed them of the risk of recanalization.
Procedural Posture:
- The Burkes sued the defendant physician in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging negligence and breach of guarantee.
- The Superior Court judge made an interlocutory ruling on the potential measure of damages.
- The judge then reported the legal question regarding the proper measure of damages to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion to decide the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a wrongful pregnancy action, whose sterilization was sought for economic reasons, have a right to recover the costs of raising a healthy, normal child from a negligent physician, offset by the benefits of parenthood?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes. Parents whose sterilization was sought for economic reasons may recover the reasonably foreseeable costs of raising a healthy, unplanned child from a negligent physician, but these damages must be offset by the benefits of parenthood. The court rejected the public policy argument that the birth of a healthy child can never constitute a legal harm, finding that such a view "simply lacks verisimilitude." The court reasoned that the very act of seeking sterilization demonstrates that, for these parents, the burdens of another child outweighed the benefits. It dismissed concerns about the speculative nature of child-rearing costs, noting that courts routinely calculate complex future damages. Adopting the "benefits rule" under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920, the court concluded that a trier of fact can and should weigh the economic costs of raising the child against the emotional benefits conferred by the child's existence, particularly when the initial decision to seek sterilization was based on financial considerations.
Dissenting - O'Connor, J.
No. While a physician may be liable for traditional damages like medical expenses and pain and suffering, public policy should forbid the recovery of child-rearing costs for the birth of a healthy child. The dissent argued that the unique nature of human life makes this type of damage calculation inappropriate and against public policy. It asserted that requiring a jury to balance the costs of a child against their value is "intolerable" because it treats a human being as property and requires a determination of whether a child represents a net loss to their parents. This inquiry is fundamentally different from wrongful death cases, which presume a child's life has value. Furthermore, such litigation disserves the state's interest in strengthening family life by forcing parents to publicly disparage their child's value to maximize their financial recovery.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant precedent in Massachusetts by allowing recovery for child-rearing costs in "wrongful pregnancy" actions, a position contrary to the majority of jurisdictions at the time. The court's adoption of the "benefits rule" created a nuanced but complex framework, requiring a jury to perform a difficult emotional and financial calculation. The ruling's emphasis on the parents' economic motivation for sterilization suggests that future cases with different motivations (e.g., therapeutic or eugenic) might yield a different result, limiting the scope of the holding. This case moved away from a bright-line rule denying recovery and toward a more fact-sensitive approach that attempts to align damages with the specific harm alleged by the parents.
