Contracts Cases

1. Shaheen v. Knight
2. Hawkins v. McGee
3. McGee v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co
4. Nurse v. Barnes
5. Sullivan v. O'Connor
6. J.O. Hooker & Sons v. Roberts Cabinet Co.
7. Tongish v. Thomas
8. Hadley v. Baxendale
9. Hector Martinez & Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
10. Morrow v. First National Bank of Hot Springs
11. Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey
12. Winston Cigarette Mach. Co. v. Wells-Whitehead Tobacco Co.
13. Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed
14. Mistletoe Express Service v. Locke von Mises
15. Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.
16. Shirley MacLaine Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
17. Neri v. Retail Marine Corp.
18. Kemble v. Farren
19. Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel
20. Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum Co.
21. Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc.
22. Willoughby Roofing Supply Co. v. Kajima International, Inc.

Shaheen v. Knight (botched vasectomy)

Shaheen v. Knight
Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Pennsylvania, 11 Pa. D. & C.2d 41 (1957)

Justice Williams delivered opinion

Facts:

• Plain. contracts w/ doc to get vasectomy to make him sterile
• Operation occurred on Sept. 16, 1954
  
• "Blessed event" occurred on Feb. 11, 1956
• plain.'s wife, Doris, delivered 5th child as a result of marital relations cont'd after operation
• Plain. does not allege any negligence on part of the doc
• suit based on contract
• Operation was not necessary bec. of wife's health
• Plain. says wanted operation in order to be able to support wife and kids
• noted would not be able to abstain and was "emotionally unable to limit...family's size by reason or will power"
• Sues to have doc pick up expenses for supporting 5th child
• Def filed preliminary objections to complaint
• to sterilize a man whose wife may have a child w/o any hazard to her life is against public policy
• no "warranty of cure" under PA law
• complaint does not state negligence
• plain. made no allegation of fraud/deceit on the part of the doc
• not a contract but necessary part of his bus.
  
• plain. has been "blessed with the fatherhood of another child"

Issue:
Is a doctor responsible to pay for the upbringing of a child that results from a botched vasectomy?

Holding: No.

Reasoning:
Court says: (and makes you think they are going to go one way)

• Contract to sterilize a man is not void as against pub. pol.
• Doc. and patient able to contract for a particular result
• if result not attained, patient able to sue for breach of contract
• Plain. advsd there was a "special contract" in which he agreed to make him immediately and permanently sterile
  

And then court says:

• Def. argues plain. has not suffered and we [court] agree
• To allow damages for the normal birth of a normal child is "foreign to the universal public sentiment of the people"
• To allow damages would mean the plain. would receive money for the fun and joy that comes with raising a child
• Many people would be willing to adopt this child but plain. will not allow that
• To allow damages would be against public policy
  

Judgment: For defendant