McKernan v. Aasheim
687 P.2d 850, 102 Wash. 2d 411 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parents of a healthy, normal child born as a result of a negligent sterilization procedure may not recover damages for the costs of child-rearing. However, they may recover damages for the immediate costs associated with the failed procedure, pregnancy, and childbirth.
Facts:
- On March 7, 1980, Dr. Glen Aasheim performed a tubal ligation, a sterilization operation, on Karen McKernan.
- The purpose of the operation was to render Karen McKernan permanently sterile.
- Despite the operation, Karen McKernan became pregnant.
- She subsequently gave birth to a healthy, normal child.
- The McKernans had sought the procedure to prevent the birth of a child.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen and James McKernan filed a lawsuit against Dr. Glen Aasheim in a state trial court in February 1983.
- The complaint alleged negligence and sought various damages, including the costs associated with rearing and educating their unplanned child.
- Dr. Aasheim filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the claim for child-rearing costs.
- The trial court granted Dr. Aasheim's motion.
- The Supreme Court of Washington accepted a direct review of the trial court's partial summary judgment order.
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 tort law permit parents to recover damages for the cost of rearing and educating a healthy, normal child born as a result of a negligent sterilization procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Dimmick, J.
No, tort law does not permit parents to recover damages for the cost of rearing and educating a healthy child born after a negligent sterilization. The court holds that such damages are not recoverable for two primary reasons. First, it is impossible to establish with reasonable certainty whether the parents have suffered a net harm, as the intangible emotional benefits of parenthood cannot be calculated and weighed against the financial costs of raising a child. Second, allowing such a claim would violate public policy by creating a situation where parents would have to argue in court that their child is a net detriment, which could cause significant emotional harm to the child and would be an 'unseemly spectacle.' The court affirmed, however, that damages directly related to the failed procedure, pregnancy, and birth are recoverable.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Washington with the majority of jurisdictions that deny recovery for child-rearing costs in 'wrongful conception' cases. The court's reasoning is significant for rejecting some common justifications (like the benefits of a child always outweighing costs) and instead grounding its holding in the speculative nature of the damages and public policy concerns for the child's well-being. By distinguishing between recoverable damages for pregnancy/birth and non-recoverable damages for child-rearing, the decision establishes a clear boundary on liability for healthcare providers, offering a limited but certain remedy for this form of medical malpractice.
Unlock the full brief for McKernan v. Aasheim