University of Arizona Health Sciences Center v. Superior Court
136 Ariz. 579, 667 P.2d 1294, 1983 Ariz. LEXIS 218 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a wrongful pregnancy action, parents may recover damages for the future costs of raising a normal, healthy child, but these damages must be offset by the pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits derived from the parent-child relationship.
Facts:
- Patrick and Jeanne Heimann, who already had three children, decided they did not want any more children.
- To effectuate this decision, Patrick Heimann underwent a vasectomy procedure.
- The vasectomy was performed by a doctor employed by a health care provider (Petitioner).
- Following the procedure, Jeanne Heimann became pregnant.
- On October 4, 1981, Jeanne Heimann gave birth to a normal, healthy baby girl.
- The Heimanns alleged that they were financially unable to provide for this fourth child.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick and Jeanne Heimann filed a medical malpractice action against a health care provider in an Arizona trial court.
- The health care provider (Petitioner) filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to preclude damages for the future cost of raising the child.
- The trial judge denied the motion for partial summary judgment.
- The health care provider then brought a special action before the Arizona Supreme Court, asking it to review the trial judge's legal ruling and order the motion to be granted.
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 Arizona tort law permit parents in a wrongful pregnancy action to recover damages for the future costs of raising and educating a normal, healthy child resulting from a negligently performed sterilization?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Justice
Yes. Arizona tort law permits parents to recover the costs of raising a child after a negligent sterilization, but these damages are subject to an offset for the benefits of the parent-child relationship. The Court rejects the strict rule that bars recovery for child-rearing costs, finding it based on sentiment rather than logic and capable of producing injustice. It also rejects the 'full damage' rule that allows recovery without an offset, viewing it as mechanical and ignoring the inherent value of human life. Instead, the Court adopts the 'benefit rule,' which allows the jury to consider all foreseeable damages, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and then offset those damages by the value of the benefits, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, that the parents will derive from their relationship with the child. This approach aligns the wrongful pregnancy action with standard tort principles, which hold a wrongdoer liable for all damages caused, while trusting the jury's good sense to weigh all relevant factors and reach a just result.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Gordon, Vice Chief Justice
No. While parents should be able to recover damages for the costs of pregnancy and birth, they should not be able to recover for the future costs of raising a normal, healthy child. Allowing such damages violates public policy by creating a situation where parents must argue their child is not worth the cost of raising, which is potentially harmful to the child (an 'emotional bastard'). This new cause of action will also likely increase the cost and decrease the availability of sterilization procedures and will open the floodgates to new and protracted litigation. Furthermore, the majority's application of tort principles is inconsistent; it rejects the duty to mitigate damages through adoption or abortion, and it misapplies the Restatement's 'benefit rule' by allowing emotional benefits to offset pecuniary harms, which violates the rule's 'same interest' requirement.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'benefit rule' as the law in Arizona for wrongful pregnancy cases, placing the state among a third group of jurisdictions that take a middle-ground approach to damages. By rejecting both the absolute bar on child-rearing costs and the full recovery without an offset, the court empowers the jury with significant discretion. The ruling affirms that traditional tort principles apply to this unique context but modifies them to account for the complex emotional and relational values inherent in parenthood. This case-by-case, fact-intensive approach may lead to greater uncertainty in litigation outcomes compared to a bright-line rule, as it requires juries to quantify and compare abstract concepts like the financial cost of raising a child versus the intangible joy of parenthood.
