Troppi v. Scarf
No Reporter Information Available (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for the negligent filling of a contraceptive prescription that results in the birth of a healthy but unplanned child. These damages, which may include the costs of rearing the child, are subject to being offset by the benefits conferred by the child's birth, with the final calculation left to the trier of fact under the 'benefits rule'.
Facts:
- John and Dorothy Troppi were parents of seven children and decided to limit the size of their family after Mrs. Troppi suffered a miscarriage with an eighth pregnancy.
- Their physician prescribed an oral contraceptive, Norinyl, and telephoned the prescription to defendant Frank H. Scarf, a licensed pharmacist.
- Scarf negligently filled the prescription with Nardil, a mild tranquilizer, instead of the prescribed contraceptive.
- Believing she was taking contraceptives, Mrs. Troppi took the Nardil pills on a daily basis.
- In December 1964, Mrs. Troppi became pregnant as a result of the prescription error.
- On August 12, 1965, Mrs. Troppi delivered a normal, healthy son, their eighth child.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Dorothy Troppi filed a complaint against Frank H. Scarf in a state trial court, seeking damages.
- The trial court judge granted a summary judgment in favor of Scarf, dismissing the Troppis' complaint.
- The trial court ruled that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the benefit of having a healthy child outweighed any damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
- The Troppis (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 complaint alleging that a pharmacist's negligence in filling a contraceptive prescription resulted in the birth of a healthy but unplanned child state a valid claim for damages, including the economic costs of rearing that child?
Opinions:
Majority - Levin, P. J.
Yes, a complaint alleging that a pharmacist's negligence resulted in an unplanned child states a valid claim for damages, including the economic costs of rearing that child. This case involves a clear breach of the high standard of care owed by a pharmacist, which proximately caused foreseeable harm to the plaintiffs. The court rejected the trial judge's reasoning that the birth of a healthy child is, as a matter of law, an overriding benefit that negates all damages. Instead, the court applied the 'benefits rule' from the Restatement of Torts, § 920, which allows the trier of fact to weigh the financial and emotional costs of the unplanned child against the intangible benefits of the child's companionship and love. The court further held that public policy favors, rather than disfavors, contraception and that allowing recovery encourages pharmacists to exercise due care. Finally, the court ruled as a matter of law that plaintiffs have no duty to mitigate damages by seeking an abortion or placing the child for adoption, as such a requirement would be unreasonable.
Analysis:
This is a landmark 'wrongful conception' case that rejects the traditional view that the birth of a healthy child can never constitute a legal injury. By applying the 'benefits rule,' the court created a flexible and influential framework that allows for the recovery of child-rearing costs while acknowledging the intangible value of a child's life. The decision firmly establishes that the calculation of damages is a question of fact for the jury, preventing courts from dismissing such claims on public policy grounds as a matter of law. Its holding that plaintiffs are not required to mitigate damages through abortion or adoption has also been widely adopted, protecting parental rights and personal autonomy.
