Smith v. Gore
1987 Tenn. LEXIS 1061, 728 S.W.2d 738 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a wrongful pregnancy action resulting from a failed sterilization procedure, a plaintiff may recover damages proximately related to the pregnancy and birth, but not the costs of raising a healthy, normal child to maturity, because the legal and statutory obligation to support a child rests exclusively with the parents.
Facts:
- Becky Ann Smith, a 25-year-old divorced mother of two, gave birth to twins by caesarean section on December 9, 1982.
- During the same hospital stay, Smith underwent a pre-planned tubal ligation for permanent sterilization, performed by Drs. Arthur Gore, Tom Traylor, James Alexander, and John David.
- The sterilization technique involved a device known as a Bleier Secuclip, manufactured by Gynecol, Inc.
- Smith resumed part-time work after the birth of her twins.
- On April 9, 1983, Smith was informed that she was pregnant with her fifth child.
- Due to complications with the pregnancy, Smith was forced to quit her job.
- On December 20, 1983, Smith gave birth to a healthy, normal baby boy.
Procedural Posture:
- Becky Ann Smith (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Arthur Gore and other doctors, the hospital, and a device manufacturer (Defendants) in a Tennessee trial court.
- Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim regarding the recovery of expenses for rearing a normal, healthy child.
- The trial court denied the Defendants' motions.
- The trial court permitted the Defendants to seek an interlocutory appeal of its ruling.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) granted the Defendants' application for appeal.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, holding that child-rearing expenses were not recoverable.
- The Plaintiff, Becky Ann Smith, then sought and was granted Permission to Appeal by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 claim for wrongful pregnancy permit the recovery of damages for the costs of raising a healthy, normal child to maturity?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Justice
No. In a wrongful pregnancy action, damages are limited to those immediately and proximately related to the failed procedure, pregnancy, and birth, and do not include the costs of raising a healthy child. The court bases this holding not on abstract public policy, but on the specific and comprehensive public policy of Tennessee, as established by statute and common law, which affirmatively places the obligation for the support of minor children on the parents. This established legal duty is a rule of law that relieves the defendants of liability for child-rearing expenses, meaning their negligence is not the legal cause of those specific damages. Shifting this fundamental obligation from parents to a tortfeasor is a significant policy decision that must be left to the Legislature, not the judiciary. Recoverable damages do include medical expenses, pain and suffering during pregnancy and delivery, lost wages, and emotional distress for the period from discovery of the pregnancy until its termination.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'limited damages' rule for wrongful pregnancy actions in Tennessee, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions. The court's reasoning is significant for grounding its decision in specific statutory law regarding parental support obligations, rather than relying on more abstract and controversial public policy arguments about the value of life or the 'blessing' of a child. This approach provides a more concrete and legally defensible basis for limiting damages. The decision creates a clear boundary for tort liability in such cases, protecting healthcare providers from potentially vast and disproportionate damage awards while still providing a remedy for the direct injuries suffered by the parents.
