Jones v. Malinowski
1984 Md. LEXIS 259, 473 A.2d 429, 299 Md. 257 (1984)
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, parents may recover damages for the reasonably foreseeable costs of raising the child to the age of majority, offset by the value of the benefits the parents derive from the child's aid, society, and comfort.
Facts:
- Leon and Juanita Malinowski, a couple with limited financial means, had three children, two of whom suffered from significant health problems.
- Citing economic reasons and Mrs. Malinowski's prior traumatic experiences with childbirth, the couple decided not to have any more children.
- Mrs. Malinowski retained Dr. Thomas W. Jones to perform a sterilization procedure known as a bipolar tubal laparoscopy.
- On June 2, 1978, Dr. Jones negligently performed the procedure by misidentifying and cauterizing the wrong anatomical structure, leaving Mrs. Malinowski's left Fallopian tube intact.
- As a direct result of the failed sterilization, Mrs. Malinowski subsequently became pregnant.
- On August 16, 1979, Mrs. Malinowski gave birth to a healthy, normal fourth child, Juanita.
Procedural Posture:
- The Malinowskis sued Dr. Jones in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (a state trial court) for medical malpractice.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that it could award damages for the costs of raising the child, mitigated by the benefits conferred by the child.
- The jury found Dr. Jones was negligent and returned a general verdict awarding the Malinowskis $70,000 in damages.
- Prior to any proceedings in the intermediate appellate court, the parties jointly petitioned the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's jury instruction on damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Where a negligently performed sterilization resulted in the birth of a healthy child, does a trial court err in instructing a jury that it may award damages for the expenses of raising the unplanned child to the age of majority, reduced by the value of the benefits conferred upon the parents by having the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Chief Judge
No. In a medical malpractice case for negligent sterilization, a trial court does not err by instructing a jury that it may award damages for the cost of raising a healthy, unplanned child, offset by the benefits the parents receive from the child. The court rejected the majority rule that the benefits of a healthy child always outweigh the costs as a matter of law, finding that it would be at odds with reason to immunize physicians from the foreseeable consequences of their negligence in sterilization cases but not in other medical procedures. Instead, the court adopted the 'benefits rule,' which aligns with traditional tort principles holding a wrongdoer liable for all foreseeable consequences of their negligence. The court reasoned that parents seek damages not because they do not love the child, but because the physician's negligence forced upon them financial burdens they had a right to avoid. Finally, the court held that parents are not required to mitigate damages by undergoing an abortion or placing the child for adoption, as those options are not considered reasonable under the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
Analysis:
This decision establishes Maryland as a 'benefits rule' jurisdiction for wrongful conception torts, aligning it with what was then a minority of states. By treating negligent sterilization like other forms of medical malpractice, the court affirmed that the foreseeable economic consequences are compensable, even when the 'result' is a healthy human life. This ruling protects individuals' rights to reproductive and financial planning from negligent interference. It provides a framework for juries to conduct a nuanced, case-by-case analysis of damages rather than applying a rigid, per se rule that the birth of a healthy child cannot constitute a legally cognizable injury.
