O’Toole v. Greenberg, 64 N.Y.2d 427 (1985)
In New York, the birth of a healthy child following an unsuccessful sterilization procedure does not constitute a legally cognizable injury entitling the parents to recover the ordinary costs of raising that child.
Summary
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued physicians for medical malpractice after the wife became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child despite undergoing a tubal ligation. They sought damages for the costs associated with the pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the future costs of raising the child. The New York Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of public policy, the birth of a healthy child does not constitute a legally recognizable harm that would allow the parents to recover the costs of raising the child. This ruling establishes a clear precedent against awarding damages for child-rearing expenses in wrongful conception cases involving healthy children in New York.
Facts
Susanne O’Toole underwent a tubal ligation procedure performed by Drs. Greenberg and Leber at Jamaica Hospital and Family Practice Clinic on January 11, 1980. Despite the procedure, O’Toole became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Kelly, on November 27, 1981. The O’Tooles filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice, seeking damages for the costs of pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care, and the anticipated expenses of raising Kelly.
Procedural History
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the motion in part, dismissing the claim for the anticipated expenses of raising the child. The plaintiffs’ motion for reargument was granted, but the court adhered to its original determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court’s orders. The Appellate Division then certified the question of whether its order was properly made to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the parents in a wrongful conception action can recover the ordinary costs of raising a healthy, normal child born after an unsuccessful surgical birth control procedure.
Holding
No, because the birth of a healthy child does not constitute a legally cognizable harm for which an action in tort will lie.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while the plaintiffs may have suffered an “injuria” (a breach of the defendant’s obligation), they did not suffer “damnum” (damage recognized by law) as a result of the birth of a healthy child. The court emphasized that the law and society place a very high value on human life. Allowing recovery for the costs of raising a healthy child would require the court to improperly assess the value of human life in terms of financial burden. The court cited the principle that an act contrary to law, which does not result in legal harm – injuria absque damnum – is not actionable. The court acknowledged prior cases which generally rejected claims seeking recovery of the costs of raising a healthy child born as the result of wrongful conception, noting, “It is not within the province of the judiciary to decide that the existence of life, and in this case a normal healthy life, is a wrong for which damages can be recovered”. The court explicitly declined to address the issue of mitigation of damages through abortion or adoption, as it had determined that the birth of a healthy child was not a cognizable harm in the first instance. Therefore, no damages existed to be mitigated.