Turpin v. Sortini

Supreme Court of California · 1982 · Torts

Tortsmedical malpracticewrongful lifewrongful birthdamageswrongful lifemedical malpracticepreconception negligence

Facts

James and Donna Turpin brought their daughter Hope to defendants for evaluation of a possible hearing defect, and defendants allegedly negligently concluded her hearing was normal when she was actually deaf from a hereditary ailment. Before learning Hope's true condition, and relying on defendants' diagnosis, the parents conceived Joy; the complaint alleges they would not have conceived Joy had they known of Hope's hereditary deafness. Joy was later born totally deaf. Joy sued for general damages for being born deaf and for special damages consisting of extraordinary expenses for specialized teaching, training, and hearing equipment.

Issue

May a child born with an hereditary impairment maintain a tort action against medical providers whose preconception negligence deprived the parents of the opportunity not to conceive the child? If so, may the child recover general damages for being born impaired as well as special damages for extraordinary expenses caused by the impairment?

Rule

In California common law, a child plaintiff in a wrongful life action cannot recover general damages based on being born impaired rather than not being born at all, because courts cannot rationally determine injury or measure such damages in a fair, nonspeculative manner. However, the child may recover special damages for extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the hereditary ailment if defendants' negligence was a proximate cause of that need.

🔒

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 Sacramento, genetic specialist Dr. Lena Voss negligently told Aaron and Mia Rios that their first child's neuromuscular disorder was not hereditary. Relying on that advice, they conceived Noah, who was later born with the same disorder and now needs lifelong respiratory equipment and specialized therapy.

If Noah sues Dr. Voss for negligence, which damages claim is most likely permitted?

Explanation. The majority treats the child's claim as a professional negligence action but draws a sharp line on damages. A child in a wrongful life action may not recover general damages based on the theory that impaired life is worse than nonexistence, because courts cannot rationally determine or measure that comparison. The child may, however, recover special damages consisting of extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the hereditary ailment, so long as proximate cause is shown and double recovery is avoided. (Derived from Turpin v. Sortini (n.d.).)