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