Sullivan v. O'Connor (a.k.a. professional entertainer (or Private Dancer!))

Sullivan v. O'Connor
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973)

Justice Kaplan delivered opinion

Facts:

• Plaintiff rec'd jury verdict of $13,500 against def. for breach of contract for operation on plaintiff's nose
  
• Plaintiff alleges doc entered contract to perform nose job that would "enhance her beauty and improve her appearance"
• Surgery performed failed to achieve promised results, result of surgery was disfigurement and deformity, pain in body and mind, and subjected her to other damage and expense
• Case tried by jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff on contract count and for def. (doc) on negligence count
• Def. said two surgeries to fix but plaintiff had to undergo three and appearance was worsened because of it (permanently disfigured)
• Plaintiff did not show change in appearance resulted in loss of employment
• Payments paid to plaintiff covering def.'s fee and hospital expenses were $622.65
• Def. excepted to judge's refusal of a charge that the plaintiff could not recover for pain and suffering connected with third operation or for impairment of the plaintiff's appearance and associated mental distress
• Plaintiff excepted to judge's refusal of request to charge that the plain. could recover the difference in value between promised nose and nose after operations
• plaintiff waives exception and others made by her in case the court overrules the def.'s exceptions
  

Issue:
Did the judge err in allowing the jury to take into account anything but the plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses?

Should plaintiff be able to recover for pain and suffering connected with third operation and for impairment of plain.'s appearance and assoc. mental distress?

Was there a contract? And if so, was it breached and what measure of damages can be applied?

Holding: Def.'s exceptions fail. Plaintiff not confined to recovery of her out-of-pocket expenditures; also entitled to recover for worsening of her condition, and for pain and suffering and mental distress involved in third operation. Items compensable on either an expectancy or reliance view

Reasoning:

• Suggested that agreements between docs and patients by which doc undertakes to effect a cure or to bring about a given result should be declared unenforceable on grounds of public policy, but there are many decisions recognizing and enforcing such contracts, and law in MA has treated them as valid
  
• Docs can seldom in good faith promise specific results, therefore it is unlikely that physicians of even average integrity will in fact make such promises
• Statements by physicians may be transformed in minds of patients to become firm promises, particularly when disappointed w/ results
• Law has taken middle road - allowing actions based on alleged contract, but insisting on clear proof
• Instructions to jury may include this requirement and point to complexity of operation as bearing on probability that a given result was promised
• For breach, recovery limited to restitution seems too meager and expectancy recovery may well be excessive
• Apply a reliance measure to present facts, using that formula in special situations
• No general rule barring seeking to obtain pain and suffering as part of damages in breach of contract
• When contract calls for an operation on the plain., physical psychological injury may be expected to occur
• suffering or distress resulting from breach going beyond what expected and agreed upon, should be compensable on same ground as the worsening of the patient's condition because of breach (could get p&s for having to undergo third surgery but not first two as those were expected and agreed upon)
  

Judgment: Affirmed, jury instructions were appropriate