Turpin v. Sortini
31 Cal. 3d 220, 643 P.2d 954, 182 Cal. Rptr. 337 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child in a “wrongful life” action may not recover general damages for pain and suffering, but may recover special damages for the extraordinary medical and training expenses necessitated by the hereditary ailment.
Facts:
- James and Donna Turpin brought their first daughter, Hope, to Adam J. Sortini for evaluation of a possible hearing defect.
- Sortini and his colleagues negligently examined Hope and incorrectly advised her parents that her hearing was within normal limits.
- In reality, Hope was totally deaf as a result of a hereditary condition.
- Relying on this incorrect diagnosis, the Turpins conceived a second child, Joy.
- The Turpins alleged that had they known of Hope's hereditary condition, they would not have conceived Joy.
- Joy was born with the same total, hereditary deafness as her older sister, Hope.
Procedural Posture:
- James, Donna, Hope, and Joy Turpin filed a complaint in California trial court against Adam J. Sortini and the medical facilities.
- Defendants filed a demurrer to Joy's cause of action for wrongful life.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal on Joy's claim.
- Joy, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal, creating a conflict with another appellate decision.
- The California Supreme Court granted a hearing to resolve the conflict between the Courts of Appeal.
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 child born with a hereditary ailment have a tort cause of action against a medical provider whose pre-conception negligence deprived the child's parents of the option to not conceive the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaus, J.
Yes, but only to a limited extent. A child in a wrongful life action may sue for special damages for the extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the hereditary ailment, but may not recover general damages for pain and suffering. The court reasoned that general damages are impossible to calculate because they would require a jury to compare the value of an impaired life with the unknowable value of nonexistence, a task outside the realm of human competence. In contrast, special damages for medical care and training are quantifiable, certain, and represent a direct financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence. It would be anomalous to permit parents to recover these costs but deny them to the child, who will bear them after reaching the age of majority.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
Yes. A child should be able to state a cause of action for wrongful life and recover all damages that are a proximate result of the defendant's negligence, including general damages. The majority's decision to permit recovery of special damages while denying general damages for the very same tort is internally inconsistent. Citing the reasoning in Curlender v. Bio-Science Laboratories, the dissent argues that California tort law provides a remedy for every wrong and that juries are capable of assessing damages for an infant's pain and suffering, as they do in other contexts.
Concurring - Newman, J.
Yes, but the decision is best left to another branch of government. The concurring justice agrees with the majority's result but believes that fundamental changes to tort law of this nature, creating a new type of liability, should be made by the Legislature rather than the courts.
Analysis:
This decision established a novel, limited cause of action for “wrongful life” in California, diverging from the national consensus which had uniformly denied such claims from children. By bifurcating damages—allowing special but not general—the court created a compromise that acknowledges the tangible financial burdens of a genetic defect while sidestepping the unquantifiable philosophical question of whether an impaired life is an injury compared to nonexistence. This ruling created a new precedent, allowing children to directly sue for their own extraordinary care costs, and shaped the litigation of future wrongful life claims to focus on measurable economic losses rather than pain and suffering.
Unlock the full brief for Turpin v. Sortini