Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamages
contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesverdictoverruled

Related Cases

Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 311 S.E.2d 571
View Case »
Collins v. Eli Lilly Co., 116 Wis.2d 166, 342 N.W.2d 37
View Case »
Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S211
View Case »
Stevenson v. Reese, 239 Mich.App. 513, 609 N.W.2d 195
View Case »
Golden v. Amory, 329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sullivan v. O’Connor, 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183, 99 A.L.R.3d 294

Facts

The plaintiff, a professional entertainer, entered into a contract with the defendant surgeon to perform two plastic surgeries on her nose to enhance her beauty. However, after undergoing three operations, the result was a disfigured nose that caused her pain and mental distress. The plaintiff's nose, which had been straight but prominent, became concave and bulbous, leading to a loss of symmetry. Although the plaintiff did not demonstrate a loss of employment due to her changed appearance, she incurred expenses totaling $622.65 for the surgeries.

The declaration was in two counts. In the first count, the plaintiff alleged that she, as patient, entered into a contract with the defendant, a surgeon, wherein the defendant promised to perform plastic surgery on her nose and thereby to enhance her beauty and improve her appearance; that he performed the surgery but failed to achieve the promised result; rather the result of the surgery was to disfigure and deform her nose, to cause her pain in body and mind, and to subject her to other damage and expense.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the plaintiff could recover damages for pain and suffering and the worsening of her condition due to the surgeon's breach of contract.

The Supreme Judicial Court, Kaplan, J., held that as damages for surgeon's breach of contract to perform two plastic surgery operations on professional entertainer's nose and to thereby enhance her beauty and improve her appearance entertainer was not confined to recovery of out-of-pocket expenditures but was entitled to recover for worsening of her condition, which involved a mental ailment, and for pain and suffering and mental distress involved in a third operation.

Rule

The court held that damages for breach of contract in medical cases could include not only out-of-pocket expenses but also compensation for worsening conditions and associated pain and suffering, based on either expectancy or reliance measures.

In absence of claim for pain and suffering connected with first two operations contemplated by agreement or the whole difference in value between present and promised condition, aforementioned elements were compensable on either an expectancy or reliance basis.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the worsening of her condition and the pain and suffering associated with the third operation. The judge instructed the jury to consider the nature of the plaintiff's profession and the psychological impact of the disfigurement, allowing for a broader interpretation of compensable damages beyond mere out-of-pocket expenses.

The judge instructed the jury, first, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover her out-of-pocket expenses incident to the operations. Second, she could recover the damages flowing directly, naturally, proximately, and foreseeably from the defendant's breach of promise.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the worsening of her condition and for pain and suffering related to the third operation, overruling the defendant's exceptions.

We conclude that the defendant's exceptions should be overruled.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the case, as the court recognized her right to recover damages for the psychological and physical impacts of the surgeon's breach of contract.

The plaintiff patient secured a jury verdict of $13,500 against the defendant surgeon for breach of contract in respect to an operation upon the plaintiff's nose.

You must be