Court Opinion

ID: 9685225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:26:28.55527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.374774
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C. J.
(dissenting). Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants alleging negligent sterilization and breach of contract. The unsuccessful sterilization resulted in an unwanted pregnancy and an unplanned child. The jury in this case was instructed, according to the holding of Troppi v Scarf, 31 Mich App 240, 255; 187 NW2d 511 (1971), that the benefits, if any, to these plaintiffs from the unplanned child were to be weighed against all *465the elements of claimed damage. See also Stephens v Spiwak, 61 Mich App 647, 650-651; 233 NW2d 124 (1975). The plaintiffs affirmatively and voluntarily disclaimed the cost of raising the child as an element of their damages. No convincing argument has been made that this voluntary tactic should operate to preclude application of the Troppi benefits rule. The Troppi rule was intended to afford juries necessary flexibility in assessing damages. The majority opinion greatly impairs that flexibility.
Application of the Troppi benefits rule would not have foreclosed recovery by these plaintiffs had they sought compensation for all their damages. See Green v Sudakin, 81 Mich App 545; 265 NW2d 411 (1978). If the majority opinion is correct that application of the Troppi benefits rule "would * * * outlaw a cause of action” on the facts of the instant case, that is a consequence of the plaintiffs’ tactical decision to seek recovery for only a portion of their potential damages. I cannot agree that this is a sufficient reason for rejection of the Troppi benefits rule.
The majority would allow these plaintiffs to split their cause of action thereby enabling them to recover for pregnancy damages without any offset for the benefits, if any, of the unplanned child. I would follow Troppi: *466nomic costs of an unplanned child in applying the 'same interest’ rule. Accordingly, the benefits of the unplanned child may be weighed against all the elements of claimed damage.” Troppi, supra, at 255. (footnotes omitted).
*465"Thus, if the defendant’s tortious conduct conferred a benefit to the same interest which was harmed by his conduct, the dollar value of the benefit is to be subtracted from the dollar value of the injury in arriving at the amount of damages properly awardable.
"Since pregnancy and its attendant anxiety, incapacity, pain, and suffering are inextricably related to child bearing, we do not think it would be sound to attempt to separate those segments of damage from the eco-
*466Plaintiffs’ arguments on the other issues they have raised have not established any reversible error. Hence, I would affirm.