Court Opinion

ID: 9723238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:08:16.734785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.813371
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The majority decision permits the parents of a healthy child to recover from a physician who performs an ineffective vasectomy the reasonable foreseeable costs of rearing, subject to an offset for'the value of benefits conferred on them by the child. I dissent upon the ground that the worth of a healthy child to his parents will always exceed these costs. This view has the support of such decisions as Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 227 A.2d 689, 22 A.L.R.3d 1411 (1967), and cases cited therein. See, also, Annotation, 22 A.L.R.3d 1441. It is also consistent with the reasoning of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Christensen v. Thornby, 192 Minn. 123, 255 N.W. 620, 93 A.L.R. 570 (1934). Although the paragraph from the Christensen case which is quoted in the majority opinion may be characterized as dictum, it is significant that a unanimous court apparently considered it preposterous for the father of an unplanned child to be awarded damages in a case such as this for the cost of nurture and education of the child during its minority.
Only 3 years ago, in Pehrson v. Kistn 301 Minn. 299, 303, 222 N.W.2d 334, 331 (1974), we said, in a wrongful-death action,' “ * * * [I]t is difficult to visualize a case where a human being does not have some monetary value in addition to [pecuniary] damages incurred by next of kin.” In so far as the majority decision permits parents to recover damages by proving their healthy child a net burden to them, it is contrary to public policy, in my judgment. We should not permit the courts to be used for this purpose. I would direct the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant.