Johnson v. University Hospitals
44 Ohio St. 3d 49, 540 N.E.2d 1370, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 142 (1989)
Rule of Law:
In a 'wrongful pregnancy' action resulting in the birth of a healthy, normal child, a parent may not recover child-rearing expenses as an element of damages, as such damages are deemed speculative and against Ohio's public policy.
Facts:
- A parent, Ruth Johnson, desired to prevent conception or limit her family size.
- Ruth Johnson underwent a sterilization procedure performed by a medical professional.
- The sterilization procedure was performed negligently.
- Subsequently, Ruth Johnson conceived and gave birth to a healthy, normal child.
- Ruth Johnson incurred expenses for raising the child.
Procedural Posture:
- A parent (plaintiff) initiated a 'wrongful pregnancy' action in a trial court against the medical professional(s) (defendant) who performed a negligent sterilization operation, seeking damages including child-rearing expenses.
- The trial court likely issued a ruling regarding the scope of damages, which led to an appeal.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision (or an adverse ruling on damages) to an intermediate appellate court.
- The intermediate appellate court issued a judgment (which was subsequently affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court, meaning it likely denied the recovery of child-rearing expenses).
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the intermediate appellate court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a parent of a healthy, normal child, born subsequent to a negligently performed sterilization operation, recover the expenses of raising the child as an element of damages in a 'wrongful pregnancy' action?
Opinions:
Majority - Douglas, J.
No, a parent of a healthy, normal child, born subsequent to a negligently performed sterilization operation, may not recover the expenses of raising the child as an element of damages. The Court acknowledged Ohio recognizes a 'wrongful pregnancy' action but addressed the previously undecided question of damages. The Court reviewed four theories: 'No Recovery,' 'The Benefits Rule,' 'Limited Damages,' and 'Full Recovery.' It rejected the 'no recovery' rule as conflicting with traditional tort law. It also rejected 'the benefits rule' (which offsets child-rearing costs with the intangible benefits of parenthood) because it considered such an offset to be comparing 'apples to oranges,' inconsistent with the Restatement of Torts, and impossible for a jury to accurately quantify the value of a child's benefits. The 'full recovery' rule was also rejected, as strict tort rules are not deemed suited to a case where a child's birth, rather than an injury, is the direct outcome of the tortious conduct. Instead, the Court adopted the 'limited damages' theory, which restricts recovery to damages related to the pregnancy and birth itself (e.g., medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages during pregnancy). The majority reasoned that child-rearing expenses are unduly speculative and ethically questionable to measure, were not recognized at common law for such actions, and that the birth of a healthy, normal child cannot, as a matter of public policy in Ohio, be considered an 'injury' to her parents. The Court further stated that if such expenses are to be recognized, it is the role of the General Assembly, not the judiciary, to establish guidelines. Parents are not obligated to mitigate damages by abortion or adoption, as these are considered unreasonable efforts.
Dissenting - H. Brown, J.
Yes, a parent of a healthy, normal child, born subsequent to a negligently performed sterilization operation, should recover child-rearing expenses as an element of damages. Justice Brown argued that the majority's decision unjustly penalizes parents who make lawful choices regarding family planning and violates well-established principles of negligence law, which require recovery for provable damages proximately caused by a defendant's breach of duty. The dissent asserted that the cost of rearing a child is measurable, citing its routine calculation in insurance and estate planning, and is far less speculative than many other types of damages recoverable in civil actions (e.g., pain and suffering, loss of consortium). Justice Brown contended that the majority's reliance on 'public policy' is inconsistent with prior Ohio precedent (Bowman v. Davis) which established the right to choose not to procreate as a constitutional guarantee and found that wrongful pregnancy actions are not against public policy. The dissent clarified that the parents seek damages not because they do not love the child, but because the physician's negligence forced upon them burdens they sought to avoid. It highlighted the inconsistency of allowing damages for the pregnancy itself while denying child-rearing costs, as both are direct, measurable economic consequences of the negligence. The dissent dismissed concerns about emotional harm to the child, stating that such a concern is disingenuous since the child could draw similar conclusions from a suit for pregnancy expenses alone.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of recoverable damages in 'wrongful pregnancy' actions in Ohio, distinguishing it from jurisdictions that permit recovery for child-rearing expenses under 'the benefits rule' or 'full recovery' theories. By deeming child-rearing costs speculative and against public policy, the Ohio Supreme Court emphasized judicial restraint, deferring to the legislature for any expansion of damages in such cases. The ruling creates a tension between compensating for foreseeable harm in tort law and societal values attached to the sanctity of life, preventing parents from recovering the full economic burden of an unwanted but healthy child resulting from medical negligence.
