Emerson v. Magendantz
689 A.2d 409 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action for a negligently performed sterilization that results in the birth of a healthy child, the plaintiff may recover limited damages for the direct costs of the pregnancy and birth but not for the costs of raising the child. However, if the physician was or should have been on notice of a risk that the child would be born with defects, the plaintiff may recover the extraordinary costs associated with raising a handicapped child.
Facts:
- Diane and Thomas Emerson decided to limit their family to one child for financial reasons.
- Diane Emerson consulted with Dr. Henry Magendantz, a gynecological specialist, to be sterilized.
- On January 10, 1991, Dr. Magendantz performed a surgical tubal ligation on Diane Emerson.
- Approximately four months later, on May 31, 1991, Diane Emerson was diagnosed as pregnant.
- On January 11, 1992, she gave birth to a child, Kirsten.
- The complaint alleged that Kirsten was born with unspecified congenital problems.
- Following Kirsten's birth, Diane Emerson underwent a second tubal ligation procedure.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane and Thomas Emerson filed a complaint against Dr. Henry Magendantz in the Superior Court for the County of Providence.
- The defendant, Dr. Magendantz, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- In response to the motion, a justice of the Superior Court certified two questions of law to the Rhode Island Supreme Court for determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Rhode Island law, are parents entitled to recover the costs of raising a child to maturity when that child is born as a result of a negligently performed sterilization procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Weisberger, Chief Justice
No. Parents are not entitled to recover the costs of raising a healthy child but may recover limited damages directly associated with the pregnancy and birth. The court establishes that a cause of action for negligent sterilization exists but adopts the 'limited-recovery rule' for damages. This rule allows plaintiffs to recover for the medical expenses of the ineffective sterilization, the costs of the pregnancy and delivery, the expense of a subsequent sterilization, lost wages, and loss of consortium. However, it precludes recovery for the costs of rearing a healthy child and for emotional distress, reasoning that it is impossible to calculate with reasonable certainty whether a healthy child constitutes a net loss or gain. The court determines that as a matter of public policy, the parents' decision to keep the child rather than place it for adoption is persuasive evidence that they consider the benefits of parenthood to outweigh the economic costs. An exception is made for cases where a child is born with handicaps; if the physician was or should have been on notice of such a risk, the parents may recover the extraordinary medical and educational expenses associated with raising that child.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Bourcier, J.
Yes. Parents should be entitled to recover the costs of raising the child, offset by the benefits conferred by parenthood. This action is a standard medical malpractice case and should be governed by traditional tort principles, which hold a tortfeasor liable for all reasonably foreseeable damages. The majority's 'limited-recovery' rule is a judicially created damages cap that unfairly discriminates among malpractice victims and undermines the constitutional right of individuals to limit the size of their family. The argument that damages are too speculative is unpersuasive, as juries routinely calculate speculative damages like future pain and suffering. The better approach, followed by other jurisdictions, is the 'benefits rule' from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920, which allows recovery for all proximate damages, including child-rearing costs, while permitting the jury to mitigate those damages by the value of the benefits the parents receive from having the child.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'wrongful conception' tort in Rhode Island, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions that recognize the cause of action but limit recoverable damages. By adopting the 'limited-recovery rule,' the court creates a significant exception to the traditional tort principle of foreseeability, prioritizing public policy concerns about the value of human life over holding a tortfeasor liable for all consequences of their negligence. The ruling insulates negligent physicians from the largest potential cost of a failed sterilization, thereby shaping the litigation landscape for such cases. The exception for foreseeable birth defects, however, preserves a path for more extensive damages in specific factual scenarios involving heightened risk.
Unlock the full brief for Emerson v. Magendantz