Nancy BEARDSLEY, et al., Fannie Jo Counts, et al., Appellants
(Plaintiffs),
v.
John WIERDSMA, M.D.; Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater
County, Rock Springs, Wyoming; and Davol, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Appellees (Defendants).
Supreme Court of Wyoming - September 3, 1982
By
Gustavo Gutiérrez
PUBLIC NUISANCE
http://abogado.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83668159/special-torts-308042014_0000.pdf
Public nuisance unreasonably interferes with
public’s enjoyment of legal rights common to public
Public at large = general public. Includes general
population living in area affected by public
nuisance, such as neighborhood, end of town, entire
city, etc.
Unreasonable and substantial interference. Same
definition as used in private nuisance.
NUISANCE PER SE
http://abogado.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83668159/special-torts-308042014_0000.pdf
Latin per se = by itself
Activities are nuisances per se if they
violate public nuisance statutes or
ordinances
Violation of statute is prima facie
evidence that public nuisance exists, and
defendant is liable as a matter of law
WRONGFUL DEATH
http://abogado.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83668159/special-torts-308042014_0000.pdf
Statutes giving cause of action to surviving
family members of deceased tort victim against
tortfeasor whose negligence or intentional torts
resulted in victim’s death.
Typical fact pattern:
• Tortfeasor commits tort against victim.
• Victim dies as a result of tortfeasor’s actions.
• Victim’s spouse and/or children sue tortfeasor
for wrongfully causing victim’s death.
WRONGFUL LIFE (PREGNANCY) ACTIONS
http://abogado.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83668159/special-torts-308042014_0000.pdf
Lawsuits for wrongful birth of a child.
Typical fact patterns:
• Couple visits physician for vasectomy or tubal ligation to
prevent future conceptions. Medical procedures fail and
couple inadvertently conceive a child. Parents sue
physician in wrongful life.
Relatively new tort in United States law, having arisen within
past 25 years.
Plaintiff’s damages:
• Medical expenses incurred during pregnancy and delivery
• Sometimes, defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff for cost of
raising plaintiff’s child until age of majority.
PARTICIPANTS
PLAINTIFF’S/APPELLANTS
Nancy Beardsley, et
al., Fannie Jo
Counts, et al.
The husbands of the
female appellants
were also plaintiffs
and are appellants
here
DEFENDANT’S/APPELLEES
 Dr. Weirdsma, who
performed the tubal
ligations
 Memorial Hospital of
Sweetwater County,
where the operations were
performed
 Davol, Inc., which
manufactured the
cauterization instrument
used in the surgery
FACTS
Appellants filed suit against the appellees seeking damages
resulting from unsuccessful tubal ligations.
Eighteen appellants had tubal ligations so that they would
become sterile, but instead became pregnant.
At the time of the suits eleven of these appellants had given
birth to healthy, normal children; three of the appellants were
pregnant; and four of the appellants had terminated their
pregnancies.
The women who did not terminate their pregnancies, together
with their husbands, brought a cause of action which is styled
as a "wrongful birth" action, although it is sometimes
denominated a "wrongful pregnancy" action. It is essentially a
medical malpractice action.
FACTS
The husbands and wives who became parents or were to
become parents were also plaintiffs on behalf of the children
in another action which is denominated a "wrongful life"
action.
In their complaints, appellants alleged various acts of
negligence against the three appellees.
They also alleged breach of warranty against Davol, Inc.
Intermingled in the appellants' tort claims are allegations that
apparently were designed to state a cause of action for breach
of contract.
The trial judge granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of
all appellees.
ISSUE
“The principal issue
in this case is whether
the parents have a
cause of action in
their own right for
‘wrongful birth’
against appellees,
assuming that fault on
appellees' part led to
the birth of an
unplanned, yet
normal and healthy
child.”
RULE OF LAW
“…parents have a right to recover all expenses and damages
incurred or to be incurred resulting from the birth of an
unplanned child, subject to an offset for the benefits that will be
enjoyed by the parents. This concept is sometimes called the
‘benefit-rule.’ In adopting the ‘benefit-rule,’ some courts have
applied Restatement, Second, Torts, § 920, p. 509 (1979).
When the defendant's tortious conduct has caused harm to the
plaintiff or to his property and in so doing has conferred a
special benefit to the interest of the plaintiff that was harmed,
the value of the benefit conferred is considered in mitigation of
damages, to the extent that this is equitable.
In applying the ‘benefit-rule,’ if fault is found, the trier of fact
determines all expenses and damages incurred and to be
incurred by the parents, including costs of rearing the child, and
then makes a deduction for benefits the child brings to the
parents. Ochs v. Borrelli, 187 Conn. 253, 445 A.2d 883 (1982).”
APPLICATION
“We reject any claim for damages or expenses
after the birth of the child. We believe that these
latter expenses and damages are too speculative;
that the injury is too remote from the negligence;
that the injury is out of proportion to the
culpability of the tortfeasors; and that the
allowance of recovery would place too
unreasonable a burden on appellees, since it
would likely open the way for fraudulent claims,
and since it would enter a field that has no
sensible or just stopping point.
We specifically reject the ‘benefit-rule’ or offset
concept.”
APPLICATION
“…The preciousness of human life should not be held to
vary with the circumstances surrounding birth. To make
such a determination would, indeed, raise the unfortunate
prospect of ruling, as a matter of law, that under certain
circumstances a child would not be worth the trouble and
expense necessary to bring him into the world. Coleman
v. Garrison, supra, at 761.
We believe that the benefits of the birth of a healthy,
normal child outweigh the expense of rearing a child.
The bond of affection between child and parent, the pride
in a child's achievement, and the comfort, counsel and
society of a child are incalculable benefits, which should
not be measured by some misplaced attempt to put a
specific dollar value on a child's life.”
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the trial court's dismissal
of the "wrongful life" action.
“The ‘wrongful life’ action asserted by the parents on behalf of
their children is an action for damages based on appellees'
negligence which caused a particular child to be born. We hold that
a cause of action for ‘wrongful life’ under the circumstances here
does not exist.
The California Supreme Court stated:
In sum, we conclude that while a child in a ‘wrongful life’
action may not recover general damages for being born
impaired as opposed to not being born at all, the child, like his
or her parents, may recover special damages for the
extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the hereditary
ailment.
We know of no cases recognizing a ‘wrongful life’ cause of action
under the circumstances of this case. The district judge was correct
in dismissing the ‘wrongful life’ claims.”
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the
trial court's dismissal of the "wrongful birth"
or "wrongful pregnancy" action.
“We think that a child should not be viewed as
a piece of property, with fact finders first
assessing the expense and damage incurred
because of a child's life, then deducting the
value of that child's life. For that reason, we
think Restatement, Second, Torts § 920, supra,
has no application to ‘wrongful birth’
actions.”
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court of Wyoming remanded
the cases to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
“We have said some things that were not
necessary to this opinion. However, the
apparent unnecessary matters are intertwined
with necessary matters. It is proper for the
Supreme Court to decide incidental questions
which are bound to arise again in the case.”
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association v.
State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo., 1982).