Macomber v. Dillman

Notable Items:

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Venue: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Did the Superior Court by its order properly deny the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim against the defendants for which relief can be granted?
Did the Superior Court by its order properly set forth the damages that the plaintiffs could recover should they prevail in their action against the defendants?

Petitioner's Claim(s):

that as a proximate result of the defendants' negligent and careless failure to comply with the standard of care of medical practice in the performance of a tubal ligation on Roxanne [Macomber] for the purpose of permanent sterilization, Roxanne was not permanently sterilized and had conceived and given birth to a child, Maize.
... sought damages from defendants "including, but not limited to, the cost of raising and educating Maize May Macomber, the medical and other expenses of the pregancy and childbirth, the medical and other expenses of a subsequent hysterectomy for the purposes of sterilization, lost wages, loss of consortium, the medical and other expenses of the unsuccessful tubal ligation, permanent physical impairment of Roxanne Macomber resulting from bearing Maize May, her sixth child, and the physical and mental pain and suffering resulting [therefrom]."

Respondent's Claim(s):

Motions for dismissal or summary judgement on the grounds that the plaintiffs by their complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and could not recover damages for the cost of rearing and educating a healthy, normal child.

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held:
... it is clear that the necessary elements of a cause of action in negligence have been set forth against the defendants.
We hold that for reasons of public policy that a parent cannot be said to have been damaged or injured by the birth and rearing of a healthy, normal child.
Accordingly, we limit the recovery of damages, where applicable, to the hospitalization and medical expenses for the sterilization procedures and pregnancy and the loss of earnings by the mother during that time.
Because his wife's cause of action is for negligence, Steven Macomber may recover proven damages for loss of consortium. Disposition: Remanded to Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.

Material Facts:

A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

Suit filed April 1984.
Defendants motions to dismiss or summary judgement denied by Superior Court.
Case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine by joint motion of the parties.
... should the plaintiffs prevail they would be entitled to recover "all reasonable, foreseeable, and proximately caused damages, including the expenses of child rearing."

Rationale

Majority Opinion

We first address the question of whether the plaintiffs have by their complaint state a claim against the defendants.
The necessary elements of a cause of action for negligence are a duty owed, a breach of that duty proximately causing the plaintiff's injuries and resulting damages....
... it is clear that the necessary elements of a cause of action in negligence have been set forth against the defendants.
We next consider whether the Superior Court correctly established the scope of recoverable damages.
We hold that for reasons of public policy that a parent cannot be said to have been damaged or injured by the birth and rearing of a healthy, normal child.
Accordingly, we limit the recovery of damages, where applicable, to the hospitalization and medical expenses for the sterilization procedures and pregnancy and the loss of earnings by the mother during that time.
Because his wife's cause of action is for negligence, Steven Macomber may recover proven damages for loss of consortium.
A full description of the rationale is available below

McKusik Dissent (Nicols, Roberts concurring. Scolnik concurring in part and dissenting in part)

Although I concur that a cause of action exists for medical malpractice in the performance of tubal ligation, I am unable to agree with the Court's judicially imposed limitation on the damages that are recoverable.
Moreover, the Court's opinion is an unwarranted departure from the fundamental principle of tort law what once a breach of duty has been established, the tortfeasor is liable fro all foreseeable damages that proximately result from his acts. [child rearing costs included]
... the Court has concluded that the birth of a normal child is recognized as an injury that is directly attributable to the health-care provider's negligence.
I know of no instance where we have strayed from the common law principle that a tortfeasor is liable for every foreseeable injury proximately caused by his negligent act and we should avoid doing so here.
[no requirement that the plaintiff resort to adoption or abortion under mitigation of harm rule]

Full Recounting of Facts

A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

The core of the rationale is available above