Zehr v. Haugen
318 Or. 647, 871 P.2d 1006, 1994 Ore. LEXIS 32 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's failure to perform an agreed-upon sterilization procedure can give rise to claims for medical negligence and breach of contract, and the expenses of raising and educating a resulting healthy, normal child are recoverable economic damages for these claims. While refusing a properly requested oral argument is an error, it does not require reversal unless the party demonstrates actual prejudice.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, requested that defendant physician perform a tubal ligation (sterilization procedure) on the wife during the Caesarean delivery of her second child.
- Defendant physician and his professional corporation, and defendant hospital, allegedly agreed to perform the tubal ligation.
- The defendants failed to perform the tubal ligation on the wife as requested and agreed.
- As a direct result of the failure to perform the procedure, the wife subsequently became pregnant and gave birth to a third child.
- The third child born to the plaintiffs was healthy and normal.
- Plaintiffs incurred economic damages related to the costs of the pregnancy and birth, and anticipated future costs of raising and educating the third child.
- Plaintiffs also sought noneconomic damages related to emotional suffering and their changed family situation.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants moved to dismiss each of plaintiffs' claims (negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty) in the state trial court (circuit court) under ORCP 21 A, arguing failure to state sufficient facts for relief, that the tort of 'wrongful pregnancy' is not recognized, that contract/warranty claims sounded only in tort, and that 'child-rearing expenses' were not recoverable damages.
- Plaintiffs requested oral argument on defendants' motions pursuant to UTCR 5.050(1).
- The trial court refused plaintiffs’ request for oral argument and granted all of defendants’ motions to dismiss.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s refusal to allow oral argument was an error requiring reversal.
- The Court of Appeals also concluded that plaintiffs stated a claim for negligence in the form of medical malpractice and alleged at least some recoverable damages (expenses of pregnancy and birth, and lost wages).
- The Court of Appeals further concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty.
- The Court of Appeals declined to decide whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages related to raising the child and providing for its college education.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case.
- Defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of Oregon for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a plaintiff state a valid claim for medical negligence or breach of contract when a physician fails to perform an agreed-upon tubal ligation, resulting in the birth of a healthy, normal child? 2. If so, are the expenses of raising the child and providing for its college education recoverable economic damages for these claims? 3. Does a trial court's erroneous refusal to grant oral argument on motions to dismiss automatically require reversal of its rulings?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, J.
No, a trial court's erroneous refusal to grant oral argument does not automatically require reversal. The trial court erred in refusing plaintiffs’ request for oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss, as Uniform Trial Court Rule 5.050(1) uses mandatory language, and the history of the rule supports the right to oral argument. However, this procedural error does not necessitate reversal unless it substantially affected the plaintiffs' rights, and the record in this case did not demonstrate such prejudice. Yes, plaintiffs' allegations state a claim for medical negligence. The allegations met the requirements for a professional negligence claim: 1) a duty from defendant to plaintiff, 2) a breach of that duty, 3) a resulting harm measurable in damages, and 4) causation, consistent with Stevens v. Bispham. A tubal ligation, as a surgical procedure, falls within the scope of medical malpractice. Yes, plaintiffs' allegations state a claim for breach of contract. This claim is distinct from negligence because it alleges a complete failure to perform the contracted-for procedure, rather than a failure to exercise due care in its performance. Where parties agree upon specific performance without reference to a general standard of care, the defendant may be liable for breach of contract, as established in Securities-Intermountain v. Sunset Fuel. No, plaintiffs' allegations do not state a claim for breach of warranty. A breach of warranty claim typically relates to the insufficient quality of provided services, not to a complete failure to perform the services. Plaintiffs' claim described a failure to perform, which is a breach of contract, not a breach of warranty concerning the quality of work. Yes, the expenses of raising the resulting healthy, normal child and providing for its college education are recoverable economic damages for both negligence and breach of contract claims. For negligence, the court reasoned that the birth of a child following a failed sterilization can be considered a 'harm' to the particular plaintiff for whom damages may be sought, even if others might view the event as beneficial. These damages are not, as a matter of law, too speculative at the pleading stage, and their recoverability is ultimately a question of fact for the jury. For breach of contract, these damages align with the 'expectation interest' remedy, which aims to place the aggrieved party in the position they would have occupied had the contract been fully performed. Like negligence damages, these are not too speculative for pleading purposes.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the types of claims and damages available in 'wrongful pregnancy' cases in Oregon, making a critical distinction between claims for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty following a failed sterilization procedure. By affirming the recoverability of child-rearing and education expenses for a healthy, normal child, the court broadens the scope of recoverable damages in medical malpractice and contract actions beyond direct medical costs. It also reinforces that while procedural errors, such as denying oral argument, are acknowledged as mistakes, they do not warrant automatic reversal unless the party can demonstrate actual, substantial prejudice to their rights.
