Saturday, September 13, 2008

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

1 comment:

Unknown said...

" warranty for cure " , what does that law mean ?