Fassoulas v. Ramey

Supreme Court of Florida · 1984 · Torts

TortsMedical malpracticeWrongful birthDamageswrongful birthnegligent vasectomymedical malpracticedamages

Facts

Edith and John Fassoulas decided against having more children because their first two children had been born with severe congenital abnormalities, and John underwent a vasectomy performed by Dr. Ramey in January 1974. Because of the defendants' negligence in performing the operation, advising about residual sperm, and evaluating sperm samples, Edith became pregnant twice after the vasectomy. The first post-vasectomy child, Maria, was born with many congenital deformities, and the second, Roussi, was born with a slight deformity corrected at birth and is now healthy. The parents sued in tort for damages including medical expenses, emotional distress, lost wages, consortium, and the expenses of caring for and raising the two children.

Issue

In a wrongful birth negligence suit based on a negligently performed vasectomy, may the parents recover past and future damages for the care and upbringing of the child from the physician? More specifically, are ordinary rearing expenses recoverable for either a healthy child or a defective child, and are any special expenses for a defective child recoverable?

Rule

In Florida, parents may not recover ordinary rearing expenses for the birth of either a normal, healthy child or a defective child in a wrongful birth negligence action arising from a negligent vasectomy. However, special medical and educational upbringing expenses beyond normal rearing costs associated with raising a deformed child are recoverable to the age of majority.

🔒

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 Tampa, Elena and Marco Ruiz decided their family was complete, and Marco underwent a negligently performed vasectomy at Gulf Harbor Surgical Group. A year later, Elena gave birth to a healthy daughter. The couple sues the physician for the costs of food, clothing, housing, and ordinary schooling through age eighteen.

Under the governing Florida rule, which damages claim is most likely to succeed?

Explanation. Florida bars recovery of ordinary rearing expenses for a normal, healthy child in a wrongful birth negligence action arising from a negligent vasectomy. The majority reasoned that support remains the parents' legal obligation and that public policy does not permit shifting ordinary upbringing costs to the physician. (Derived from Fassoulas v. Ramey (n.d.).)