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

tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencehearingtrialcommon lawrehabilitation
tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencehearingduty of carerehabilitation

Related Cases

Neibuhr v. Gage, 99 Minn. 149, 108 N.W. 884
View Case »
Govich v. North American Systems, Inc., 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,936, 1991 -NMSC- 061
View Case »
Lovely v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2008 WL 11445454
View Case »
Penny v. State, 880 S.W.2d 59
View Case »
Nowatske v. Osterloh, 198 Wis.2d 419, 543 N.W.2d 265
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Turpin v. Sortini, 31 Cal.3d 220, 643 P.2d 954, 182 Cal.Rptr. 337

Facts

James and Donna Turpin brought their daughter Hope to a rehabilitation center for evaluation of a possible hearing defect. The medical professionals incorrectly diagnosed her as having normal hearing, leading the parents to conceive a second child, Joy, before learning of Hope's true condition. Joy was born deaf, suffering from the same hereditary ailment as Hope. The Turpins filed a complaint against the medical providers, seeking damages for Joy's condition.

The allegations of the complaint disclose the following facts. On September 24, 1976, James and Donna Turpin, acting on the advice of their pediatrician, brought their first—and at that time their only—daughter, Hope, to the Leon S. Peters Rehabilitation Center at the Fresno Community Hospital for evaluation of a possible hearing defect.

Issue

Whether a child born with a hereditary affliction may maintain a tort action against a medical care provider who negligently failed to advise the child's parents of the possibility of the hereditary condition.

This case presents the question of whether a child born with an hereditary affliction may maintain a tort action against a medical care provider who—before the child's conception—negligently failed to advise the child's parents of the possibility of the hereditary condition, depriving them of the opportunity to choose not to conceive the child.

Rule

Under California common law tort principles, a child may maintain a wrongful life action and recover damages for the pain and suffering endured during their limited lifespan and any special pecuniary loss resulting from their impaired condition.

the Curlender court stated: “The reality of the ‘wrongful life’ concept is that such a plaintiff exists and suffers, due to the negligence of others. It is neither necessary nor just to retreat into meditation on the mysteries of life. We need not be concerned with the fact that had defendants not been negligent, the plaintiff might not have come into existence at all.”

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the established rule, noting that the defendants' negligence in failing to diagnose Hope's hereditary condition directly impacted Joy's conception and subsequent health. The court distinguished this case from others where children were born healthy, emphasizing that Joy's condition constituted a legally cognizable injury due to the negligence of the medical providers.

In this case, although the Turpins' older daughter Hope, and not Joy, was defendants' immediate patient, it was reasonably foreseeable that Hope's parents and their potential offspring would be directly affected by defendants' negligent failure to discover that Hope suffered from an hereditary ailment and defendants do not contend that they owed no duty of care either to James and Donna or to Joy.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's judgment, allowing Joy to pursue her claim for special damages related to her condition while affirming that she could not recover general damages.

Reversed and remanded.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, James and Donna Turpin, prevailed in part as the court allowed their daughter Joy to recover special damages for her condition, recognizing the impact of the defendants' negligence.

The court held that: (1) child could not recover general damages, but (2) child could recover for special damages for extraordinary expenses necessary to treat the hereditary ailment.

You must be