Sherlock v. Stillwater Clinic

admission, a statement of its the time at rendering exception Eugene as to prosecutor SHERLOCK, al., Respondents, et limiting instruction admissible, was a nor v. instruction general A given. requested CLINIC, STILLWATER Partnership court’s instructions of the given as Composed Stratte, of Jon R. J. E. Jen of trial. the close at sen, Juergens, M. F. Bealka, Neil M. decided squarely case has Minnesota No Murphy, Thomas R. Powell and P. M. mandatory are procedures whether Spilseth, Appellants. objection by defendant without with or in- No. 46347. evidence in first

admission Billstrom, de- Spreigl In both stance. Supreme Court of Minnesota. cases, objected. In several had fendant In summarily treated the issue. State have Oct. 116, 129, Martin, 197 N.W.2d Rehearing Denied Dec. instance, gave short (1972), for allegation of error: to defendant’s shrift objection to the testimo-

“Defendant’s bigamy the offense of bearing upon

ny he by noting disposed

may be timely objection to this testimo- no

made

ny.” Dinneen, Minn.

In State contrast, (1974), in we felt

“compelled” to note trial ruling in its that offered

erred not exception within an

evidence came rule,

exclusionary failing but in to instruct manner established Billstrom.

court in now hold that once state

We 7.02, required by Rule given notice as

has be Spreigl-Billstrom procedures

the other mandatory only upon the defendant’s

came Defendant’s fail

objection request. and/or limiting instructions in this request

ure inexplicable. We reiterate

case is should, un sponte, give sua

trial court both at the limiting instruction

equivocal at the evidence is admitted and

time the trial. But in the absence of

close of so not reversi

request, its failure to do was hold, accordingly, that

ble error. We properly ad

evidence of other offenses in this case.

mitted

Affirmed.

Altman, Geraghty, Mulally & Weiss and James Kenney, Paul, W. St. for appellants. Robins, Lyons Davis & and John F. Eis- berg and Paul L. Gingras, Paul, St. respondents.

ROGOSHESKE, Justice. principal question raised on this appeal is whether and to what extent com- pensable damages may be recovered for the normal, birth of a healthy child proximately a negligently performed steriliza operation. tion We hold that in eases such as this an “wrongful action for conception” may maintained, and that compensatory damages may be recovered child. These may prenatal include all and postnatal expenses, medical pain mother’s suffering ‍​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍during pregnancy delivery, and loss of consortium. Additionally, the parents may recover the reasonable costs of subject that, to off- mitted to testify upon based his usual aid, comfort, habit, he would the value of have told Mr. setting Sherlock that expect- presence life parents’ sperm of live society cells meant that the submission yet sterile, errors in he was not ancy. Because of and that he should bring sample issue of second in 2 to 3 weeks. a new trial limited to we remand for Relying on the erroneous belief that the that issue. operation successful, had been the Sherlocks of their seventh child Following the birth resumed normal sexual relations without Eugene Mr. and Mrs. August contraceptives. Sher- To in their consternation, Stratte, Dr. Jon a mеmber of consulted Mrs. Sherlock began lock to miss her menstrual Clinic, periods and discussed with the Stillwater several months later. August On various medical alternatives availa- him the Mr. Sherlock returned to the clinic for test, to them to ensure that their a ble second and this time he was correctly grow larger. no A decision was advised that the vasectomy had been inef- undergo reached that Mr. Sherlock would a fective. The following day, it was deter- vasectomy, operation which was subse- mined Mrs. that Sherlock pregnant, was performed by Dr. at the quently Stratte аnd in due course she delivered a 11,1970. baby boy clinic on December The Sherlocks on March operation were advised at the time of the The Sherlocks brought thereafter suit they should either refrain from sexual defendants, claiming that their contraceptive relations or take additional eighth child’s birth was a direct conclusively measures until it was deter- result of Dr. negligent Stratte’s postopera- by postoperative testing mined that Mr. tive care of Mr. Sherlock.1 Damages were sperm. semen was free of Sherlock’s sought expenses for medical incident to the January On Mr. Sherlock in pain addition to the suffering brought sample a of his semen to the Still- caused to Mrs. during Sherlock her preg- testing. water Clinic for nancy Later same and delivery, Mr. Sherlock’s loss of day, telephoned consortium, Dr. Mr. Stratte Sherlock and the supporting costs of him that the educating and informed results the the age majori- child until the “negative.” Mr. ty. Despite test were Sherlock further the perplexing developing that Dr. did not advise him testified Stratte nature of the law relating to testing, nor to return additional was of this type, cases thе lawsuit was tried as any concerning there discussion the need an ordinary negligence medical action and the continued use of contraceptives. In jury upon general submitted to the negli- fact, January gence 23 .test revealed that Mr. jury instructions. The returned a sperm $19,500, semen had a density general Sherlock’s verdict for and defendants’ sperm per high-powered cells micro- post-trial motions judg- for a new trial or scope percent field and that 50 of these ment notwithstanding the verdict were de- Although were motile. Dr. Stratte testified nied. challenge Defendants now award, having telephone no recollection of the principally grounds on the Sherlock, per- conversation with Mr. he was evidence support was insufficient alleged This extent, 1. To a lesser the Sherlocks also is because the vas deferens, which is sev- negligently itself had been ered a has a natu- vasectomy vasectomy operation, significant grow together again, There are ral back tendency performed. problems a to establish that when tries recanalize. Because of the of recа- proof plaintiff possibility negligently nalization, itself was most ac- performed. plaintiffs operation malpractice most obvious is that The first and tions do not difficulty vasecto- attempt prove negligently area is concealed. More- was but instead al- operated upon fully my performed percentage lege negligent of cases over, in a small care. See, Lom- opera- postoperative Vasectomy, though tion will be unsuccessful even bard, 10 Suffolk U.L.Rev. phy- 25; Note, degree highest sician exercised of care. Geo.L.J. 976. verdict and that verdict formed operation and, sterilization so, if extent law.2 to which compensatory were recoverable. The first of what were sufficiency reviewing In later to become known as the “wrongful verdict, evidence is this_court birth”3 cases was decided may that we fundamental substitute Christensen v. Thornby, disputed questions our on judgment of fact. that, N.W. 93 A.L.R. 570 In succinctly This set forth in case the plaintiff undergone had a vasecto Mayo, Gibeau Minn. my after his experienced wife had great (1968): giving difficulty in birth to her first child. “ * * * Where resolution of subsequently his wife When becаme preg largely upon fact disputed issue turns nant and delivered her second credibility the relative assessment of plaintiff brought “anxiety suit for his testimonial demeanor witnesses whose expenses7’ to claiming incident the nn . jury only by was observed physician that who had performed the approved the latter has trial vasectomy him believing had deceived into made, obliged af- finding we are to operation that had been successful. though might firm even we have reached trial court The sustained a demurrer to the contrary finding.” a complaint, apрeal and on we affirmed on See, also, Pennsylvania Hestad v. Life Ins. ground plaintiff that had failed to Co., 306, allege N.W.2d representation the false review, we stringent Given this standard of made with fraudulent intent sufficient jury justifiably support could have allegation hold that Apart deceit. negligently concluded that Dr. Stratte in- from the disposition technical made this case, expressly formed Mr. Sherlock that his test results we held that sterilizations negative, con- were not public were and that the unwanted policy and that action, an if ception subsequent properly birth of the pleaded, Sher- could be against eighth a maintained a physician locks’ child were direct result of for the im proper performance operation.4 of such an negligence. this 1967, Prior few courts had considered Viewed in its posture, correct the Chris- question an of whether tensen solely case stands for the proposition unplanned child could an action maintain that a cause of action exists for improp- an erly physician improperly per- performed a for sterilization. The more also, also claim that the Sherlocks have Defendants been had he not been born. by testimony expert ap- 22, Cosgrove, 689, failed to establish plicable Gleitman 49 N.J. 227 A.2d physicians of care for standard who (1967); Stroh, 22 A.L.R.3d 1411 Slawek v. perform operations, 295, sterilization Annotation, (1974); Wis.2d 215 N.W.2d 9 admitting hospital trial court erred various 22 A.L.R.3d 1441. carefully Sherlock. We have records Mrs. find to be reviewed these issues and them with- recently recog- 4.This cause of action was more out merit. Nelson, Minn., implicitly nized in Martineau v. (1976), 247 N.W.2d 409 where we reviewed the brought by parents “wrongful 3. An action for sufficiency of the evidence to a frequently birth” is confused with an action finding anof child life,” by “wrongful brought which is child recovery were barred from because of contrib- damages wrongfully being recover born. utory negligence. Although this case was con- leading “wrongful Zepeda The life” case is solely evidentiary considerations, cerned Zepeda, Ill.App.2d 190 N.E.2d 849 questions would have resolved these denied, (1963), certiorari ‍​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍379 U.S. S.Ct. disapproved underlying had we cause of (1964), 13 L.Ed.2d 545 where a child sued However, negligence. action for medical in de- allowing illegiti his father for him to be born case, ciding specifically the Martineаu de- any mate. the Illinois court nor Neither other pass appeal clined to on the issue raised on this willing permit damages in court has been dealing with the measure of action, largely type impos it is because negligently performed sterilization. sible for the trier by fact measure Minn., note position placing he the child in the gence once question parents’ and not his troublesome desires. Finally, lia-. physician of a is estab- a number of bility position on the courts took directly any damage nor con- was neither raised caused to the lished was more Nevertheless, offset the- following intangible dicta than" sidered. benefits child) gáined by the birth of a later re- opinion Christensen Gleit from the Cosgrove, man v. 49 N.J. 227 A.2d preclude parents courts to lied on other 22 A.L.R.3d 1411 Ball v. Mudge, 64 recovering damages for the economic Wash.2d 391 P.2d 201 (192 Annota of an Minn. costs tion, 22 A.L.R.3d 1441. In summary, al 572): 255 N.W. 93 A.L.R. “ * * * though most recognized courts that the un plaintiff has been [T]he wanted birth physical caused both and fi with the fatherhood of another blessed injury nancial recovery was expenses alleged are incident child. denied because of the potential emotional child, аnd their béaring of a avoid- injury to the repugnance to social the avowed purpose is remote from ance respect ethics with to the family establish might As well the operation. ment, and the the incidental with the cost charge defendant plaintiff parental outweighed burdens were by the education of the child of nurture and See, Comment, benefits. 9 Utah L.Rev. minority.” during its which followed the Christen years In the expressly reject The first case to devel courts and commentators sen policy arguments and to hold that par the view several theories оped unplanned ents 'of an normal child could that, public policy, parents as a matter (cid:127):of recover all damages proximately by caused damages permitted not be to recover should negligently performed a sterilization opera child, though even for the birth of a Bauer, tion was Custodio v. 251 Cal.App.2d may unplanned have been or the infant 303, 463, Cal.Rptr. 59 27 A.L.R.3d 884 Per conception. at the time of unwanted (1967). There the court as damages allowed argument was haps the most fundamental expenses not the immediately incident the аllowance of would be to pregnancy and birth but all the reasona historically to the conceived antithetical maintaining supporting ble costs of the marriage. expressed by As purpose of during minority. child his The court was 19, 23, 11 Knight, Lyc. v. 6 court in Shaheen point careful out the awardable 41, (1957): 45 Pa.D. & C.2d damages were not for the new life as such “ * * * great matrimony end of but rather for the in the family diminution and convenience is not the comfort of necessarily wealth that resulted in a hard parties, though these are nec- immediate ship to the of family. other mеmbers it; essarily procrea- embarked in but the Rejecting argument that an award of having legal a title to progeny tion of a damages could reduce the child to an “emo * * * by the father maintenance bastard,” tional the court found that possibility psychological harm was no disturbing to the court in the Sha- Equally greater any than in other case where a child only damages asked heen where learns that his existence is the result of his rearing the expenses were the was parents’ ineptitude at birth control. Most injustice requiring negligent physi- a persuаsively, the court observed that mod pay for all the economic costs of an cian to respect ern attitudes with estab child while the derived contraceptives lishment and the use of had affection, and satisfaction from joy, all the changed, and further insinuated that argued that rearing the child. It was also may an birth of child now be counte- an should action something viewed some as less than a it would have the effect of nanced since “blessed event.” reducing the child to an “emotional bas- learned that his inevitably respect he The lаw with tard” when precision refined with more negli- subsequently to a doctor’s birth was attributable 174 Scarf, Troppi 94 31 S.Ct. analogous case 39 L.Ed.2d 484 (1974). (1971). N.W.2d 511 Cf.

Mich.App. 187 Rieck v. Medical Protective Co. of Fort Plaintiff, children, of seven Wayne, Ind., the mother 64 219 Wis.2d N.W.2d 242 damages against pharma- a brought (1974).5 suit for jurisdiction One has an in taken filled her negligently bfrth cist who had termediate permitted and has re tranquilizers, prescription thus control covery for all damages directly related to pregnant with her causing her to become pregnancy including medical ex Michigan eighth child. While penses, pain the mother’s and suffering, recovery permit economic willing consortium, and loss of but has denied dam age child until the costs of ages for the care and maintenance of the that the amount majority, emphasized his child after birth. Coleman v. Garrison, damages awarded should be compensable Del., 349 A.2d 8 A growing majori by any upon reduced benefits conferred ty of courts recovery have allowed for all birth. This plaintiff so-called damages proximately physi rule” was derived from Restate- ‍​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍“benefit cian’s negligence, including the cost of rear mеnt, Torts, provides: which § ing the minority. child These “Where the defendant’s tortious con- required courts have ordinarily that dam plaintiff duct has caused harm ages by any be reduced benefits conferred doing in so property to his has con- by the through application upon plaintiff special benefit ferred g., “benefit rule.” Gratton, e. Stills v. harmed, to the interest which was 55 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. (1976); value of the benefit conferred is con- Anonymous State, 33 Conn.Sup. damages, mitigation sidered in where A.2d 204 Gaylor, Betancourt v. equitable.” this is N.J.Super. A.2d Bow application Although practical of this Davis, man v. St.2d Ohio 356 N.E.2d the trier require rule would of fact to as- speculative for such certain dollar value Pretermitting moral and companion- theological a child’s services and benefits as considerations, persuaded that similar we are not ship, the court noted calcula- wrongful public policy tions were made in death actions properly considerations can are deny recovery where these elements claimed not as used to of an damages. benefits but as It was also of no unplanned, healthy child of dаmages all consequence, opinion, in this court’s proximately by caused a negligently per damages birth of a child were formed operation. sterilization Analytical likely widely depending to be variable on ly, such an action indistinguishable is particular parents. circumstances of his an ordinary negligence medical action plaintiff alleges where a that a physician

In the of the Custodio and Troppi wake has breached a of care cases, controversy duty owed to has continued him over with resulting injurious awarding consequences. for the of economic Where the purpose physician’s of costs of an unwanted child born after a ac prevent conception tions is to negligently performed sterilization opera ele justice mentary minority requires tion. A of courts have he be continued that held legally responsible consequences to adhere to the older that all for vievi dam which ages should as a of have in fact be denied law. occurred.6 While other patter Garcia, See, (Tex. Terrell v. 496 124 courts have negligent S.W.2d referred to a sterili denied, Civ.App.1973), 415 “wrongful action, certiorari U.S. zation case as a birth” negligent 5. Courts in both Texas and Wisconsin have these cases involved the failure of willing apparently physicians diagnose pregnant been more to allow rubella in mothers, congenital they with when a child is born deformi that the result did not un Theimer, dergo pregnancies. ties. Jacobs v. 519 S.W.2d 846 abortions to terminate their (Tex. 1975); Hospital, St. Dumer v. Michael's 69 Wis.2d 233 N.W.2d 372 Both Prosser, of (4 ed.) Torts 41 and §§ type prop- of case is more Although public believe that this child. sentiment may “wrongful an action for erly reсognize denominated that to the majority vast par- of point concep- it is at the conception,” for of long-term enduring ents the and benefits of injury claimed tion that parenthood outweigh the economic costs of' be further originates.'' emphasized It should rearing it would seem my- exclusively of action is that this cause opic to declare today that those benefits not the parents, they since it is and of exceed the costs as a matter of law. The who both unplanned child have sustained use of various birth control methods by injury by physi- physiсal and financial millions of Americans demonstrates an ac- negligence.7 ' —cian’s of ceptance the family-planning concept as integral aspect an of the modern marital manner, of Viewed in this relationship, so that today it must be ac- should at least be entitled unplanned child knowledged that the time-honored com- damages immediately incident to recover all mand to “be fruitful multiply”8 has not of and birth. The allowance pregnancy only lost contemporary significance believe, wholly con to a is damages, growing number рotential parents9 but elementary principle sistent with the public is place policies embodied damages which seeks compensatory the statutes encouraging planning.10 they in the injured plaintiffs position Recent decisions the United States wrong in had no occurred. Su- would have been Court, preme moreover, Inc., Cargill, suggest seem Sorenson Dunnell, Dig. (3 right to limit procreation 5B is of 163 N.W.2d 59 damages include constitutional dimension. ed.) Incidental Roe v. § Wade, medi postnatal prenatal such items as 410 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d suffering incurred expenses, pain Connectiсut, cal Griswold v. mother, and loss of consortium U.S. S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d 510 it proved can be under the extent that (1965). Compensatory the cost Modern forth in Thill v. guidelines set rearing the age child to the of majority 508, 170 Co., Erecting Minn. also, in opinion, our serve useful purpose an added to negligent deterrent performance operations. sterilization allow- Most is the matter of troublesome See, Prosser, (4 ed.) 4, p. Torts 23. It may § ing recovery the costs of a nor- reinforce the physician’s duty mal, healthy religious Ethical child. due from the physician- care outset of the aside, recоgnized considerations must be patient relationship also, but from a injury are a direct medi- such costs financial viewpoint, support cal no different in immediate of those expenses resulting perform medical doctors who refuse to nontherapeu- effect than the conception birth of wrongful and tic sterilizations “on demand” on the See, 3, supra. wife) Similarly, control, 7. of footnote it could be the husband or for birth while siblings argued that the of an child using million 7.1 married were still women resulting are not to sue for See, entitled pills. Becoming birth control Sterilization of from a diminution either the wealth Control, Top Minneapolis Star, July Birth The parental or See, their share love and affection. 1A, p. col. 1. Snider, (Fla.App. Aronoff v. So.2d 418 1974). 10.See, g., legalizes e. Minn.St. 617.25 which sale, distribution, or advertisement of in- Genesis 1:28. struments, articles, drugs, or medicines for the decade, years During of this it has the first prevention contraception, persons autho- 3,566,000 voluntarily been estimated men See, also, Community rized therein. Health chose States. to be sterilized the United Act, 145.922, pro- Services to Minn.St. 145.911 See, Lombard, Vasectomy, L.Rev. 10 Suffolk subsidy viding govern- state to local units of also steriliza- Recent studies indicate that community including ment for health services becoming preferred rapidly tion is method family planning guidelines services state under among persons. of birth Sta- control married and standards. compiled tistical data in 1975 6.8 revealed (either couples million had chosen sterilization ground “frequently recognize that such sterilizations the dollar value of the constitute a serious abuse of surgical benefits to be offset assess, is difficult Williams, 2 Louisell license.” and we have routinely recovery allоwed for the Malpractice, Lastly, 19.11. aid, Medical in the comfort, § loss of and society wrongful legislatively granted of a immunity absence death actions problems where similar public policy governing declared steriliza- proof presented. See, are Sellnow v. Fa tion, physi- we remain unconvinced that a hey, 305 Minn. N.W.2d 563 cian be held should harmless for the eco- Andert, Fussner v. 261 Minn. supporting nomic costs (1961).13 N.W.2d 355 It is also our view Thus, law, in obedience to the rule of child. ‍​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍that the refusal of a mother to submit to an compelled we feel to conclude that where parents abortion or of the give their child unplanned, healthy of an up adoption for regarded should not be as a choose to include this item of failure on the to miti claim, hopefully being after advised of their gate damages. psychological consequences which could To jury assist in measuring claim, litigating result from such we will the various complex elements of dam reasonably them to recover the permit fore- age, finally require that all future ac rearing, subject to seeable costs of an offset tions wrongful conceрtion be submitted for the value of the benefits conferred to jury with special verdict form by the child. them along explanatory with instructions.14 Cou Computation costs must pled with precautions these should be a begin reasonably with an assessment of the judicial strict scrutiny pre of verdicts to expenses foreseeable that will be incurred vent excessive awards. maintain, support, In the present jury awarded the educate their child. In the case of a nor Sherlocks upon general instruc- mal, anticipate we would negligence tions of and without the aid of a expenses ordinarily these could be special verdict form. was also not age projected beyond majority, of his specifically instructed to offset the value of age parental at that duty for it is aid, comfort, child’s society keeping ceases.11 In projected rearing costs. Because of Restatement, “same interest” limitation of reverse, errors, we are compelled to Torts, 920, supra, underlying pur and its § and remand for a new trial solely limited enrichment, pose prevent unjust the trier the issue of damages. required fаct will then reduce these aid, value costs child’s com The result we today reach is at best a fort, society which will benefit the par attempt justice mortal to do in an imperfect ents for the duration of their lives.12 While In world. this endeavor we are not un- LaBelle, view, vailing parents may 11. Cf. LaBelle v. 302 Minn. recover the value of Mund, Mund v. they might 252 Minn. reasonably the benefits pected have ex- 90 N.W.2d 309 Should the un- reaching majority. from the child after planned congenital child be born with deformi- Speiser, Recovery Wrongful 2d, Death ties, parental support obligation сould of Dornack, 4.26. § Cf. Luther v. beyond course extend the date that the child 229 N.W. 784 Should the child’s life majority. McCarthy reaches his expectancy less, for some reason be than that of McCarthy, 301 Minn. 222 N.W.2d 331 the value of the conferred benefits necessarily computed expect- would be fbr ed duration of his life. j only valuing 12. Our reason for the benefits of aid, comfort, society against See, Adamson, 13. 4 Hetland & Minnesota Prac- expectancy parents life of his is that in the tice, Jury (2!ed.) II, Instruction Guides JIG 180 pecuniary usual case during benefits will be minimal S. is, minority. approach This child’s moreover, opposite cоnsistent with the situa- Nelson, Minn., 14. Martineau v. note wrongful tion encountered in an action for the (1976) 247 N.W.2d (cid:127) where, according pre- death of a minor . deep painful Only mindful of the and often times years ago, in Pehrson v. Kistn 299, 303, problems ethical that cases of this nature 222 N.W.2d (1974), said, in a pose wrongful-death action,' will continue to for both courts and “ ** * is difficult to visualize a litigants.15 It our case hope [I]t is therefore where a being human does not have some attorneys give future monetary value in addition to [pecuniary] serious reflection to the silent interests of damages inсurred by next of kin.” In so and, in particular, parent-child the child far as the majority permits decision relationships that must long be sustained to recover damages by proving their legal after controversies have been laid to healthy them, child a net burden to it is rest.16 public policy, my judgment. No costs or disbursements are allowed to We not permit should the courts to be used party. either purpose. this I would direct the trial judgment to enter for the defendant. part, part, Affirmed in reversed in remanded. PETERSON, Justice (dissenting). join I in the dissent of the Chief Justice.

SHERAN, (dissenting). Chief Justice majority рermits OTIS, J., decision part took no in the considera- healthy physi of a child to recover from a tion or decision of this case. performs vasectomy

cian who an ineffective WAHL, J., having been a member of the reasonable costs rearing, foreseeable argument court at the time of the value of subject to an offset for'the bene submission, took no in the considera- conferred on them the child. I dis fits tion or decision of this ease. upon ground sent the worth of a healthy parents will always child to his sup these costs. This view has the

exceed such

port of decisions as Gleitman Cos 49 N.J. 227 A.2d

grovе, A.L.R.3d (1967), and cases ‍​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍cited therein. also, Annotation, 22 A.L.R.3d 1441. It is Timothy GETTER, J. reasoning also with the consistent Respondent-Relator, Supreme Minnesota Court Christensen v. Thornby, 192 Minn. 255 N.W. LODGE, al., TRAVEL et A.L.R. Although paragraph Relators-Respondents. quoted Christensen case which is the majority opinion may be characteriz Nos. dictum, significant ed as it is that a unani Supreme Court of Minnesota. apparently mous court it prepos considered Nov. terous for the an unplanned father of to be awarded in a case such as

this for the cost of nurture and education of

the child minority. its regarding 15. The dissent embodies the view primary that on the that item of as the ground significant of moral values the birth instituting of a and most basis for suit. always regarded “gift” child should as a incalculable benefit to his who would Responsi- A. B. A. Code of Professional not therefore seek to recover the cost of rear- bility, (adopted August EC 7-10 us, Minn, ing in a case such as this. Those of includ- ix): duty lawyer represent “The of a ing opinion, the writer of this who share that his client zeal does not militate expectations par- view can offer our obligation concurrent to treat with considera- will, by ents reason of the limitations on recov- persons legal process tion all involved in the ery rearing, of the cost of be dissuaded from and to avoid the infliction of needless harm.”

Case Details

Case Name: Sherlock v. Stillwater Clinic

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Oct 14, 1977

Citation: 260 N.W.2d 169

Docket Number: 46347

Court Abbreviation: Minn.