Court Opinion

ID: 9735277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:07:50.780809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.646181
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
concurring.
The issue in this case is whether Steineke may recover damages representing the loss of her ability to conceive and bear children. I would recognize the loss of chance doctrine to the extent that it would allow recovery for the loss of the chance to conceive. I am, therefore, compelled to write separately from the majority opinion, and I concur only in its result.
The majority opinion necessarily recognizes loss of chance when the majority considers whether Steineke established a causal connection between appellee’s breach and Steineke’s alleged damages — the loss of the chance to conceive. To this extent, I respectfully contend that the opinion is inconsistent with its summary declaration that this jurisdiction will not recognize loss of chance as a cause of action or an element of damages in either contract or tort cases.
In this case, however, Steineke failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that she had a chance to conceive and bear children. Specifically, Steineke could not establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that her fallopian tube could have been saved but for defendant’s alleged breach. The inability to establish that the fallopian tube could have been saved eliminates Steineke’s right to recover for the loss of the chance to conceive. In this respect I agree with the decision of the majority. If Steineke could have produced evidence of this element of her cause of action, I would hold that she should be allowed to recover for the loss of the chance to conceive.
Wright, J., joins in this concurrence.