Emerson v. Magendantz

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997 · Torts

Tortsmedical malpracticenegligent sterilizationwrongful pregnancydamagessterilizationtubal ligationwrongful pregnancy

Facts

After the birth of their first child, Diane and Thomas Emerson decided for financial reasons to limit their family to one child. Diane consulted Dr. Magendantz, a gynecological specialist, who agreed to perform a tubal ligation and did so on January 10, 1991. Despite the procedure, Diane became pregnant and later gave birth to a child, Kirsten, on January 11, 1992; the complaint alleged that Kirsten had congenital problems. The Emersons sued, alleging negligent performance of the sterilization procedure, failure properly to inform Diane and obtain consent, and damages including Diane's pain, additional medical treatment, lost wages, emotional distress, and the costs of caring for the child.

Issue

Does Rhode Island law recognize a tort cause of action when a physician negligently performs a sterilization procedure and the patient later becomes pregnant and gives birth? If so, what is the proper measure of damages, particularly for a healthy child versus a child born with congenital defects?

Rule

Rhode Island recognizes a tort cause of action for the negligent performance of a sterilization procedure that results in pregnancy and childbirth. For the birth of a healthy child, damages are limited to the costs associated with the failed procedure and pregnancy, including the ineffective sterilization, pregnancy-related medical and hospital costs, a subsequent sterilization, loss of wages, loss of consortium, and prenatal, delivery, and postnatal care, but not emotional distress arising from the birth of a healthy child and not ordinary child-rearing costs. If the child is born with congenital defects, special medical and educational expenses beyond normal rearing costs are recoverable, and if the physician was or should have been on notice of a reasonable expectation of physical or mental handicap, the entire cost of raising the child is recoverable; emotional distress is also recoverable in that circumstance, subject to offset for economic benefits from governmental or other agencies contributing to the child's care.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Providence, Dr. Lila Hart performed a vasectomy on Owen Mercer after Owen and his spouse decided they did not want more children. The procedure was negligently performed, and Owen's spouse later became pregnant and gave birth.

If Owen and his spouse sue in Rhode Island, which is the best statement about their claim?

Explanation. The majority recognized a tort cause of action when a physician negligently performs a sterilization procedure and the patient subsequently becomes pregnant and delivers a child. The opinion described this rule broadly and noted that jurisdictions recognize such claims whether the sterilization was performed on the wife or the husband. (Derived from Emerson v. Magendantz (n.d.).)