Sullivan v. O'Connor
363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973)
A nose job promised to improve, that made things worse through three operations
- In one lineEn una línea
- A patient promised a better nose may recover reliance damages: the fee, the worsening of her condition, and the pain of operations beyond those bargained for.Una paciente a quien se prometió una nariz mejor puede recuperar daños por confianza: los honorarios, el empeoramiento de su estado y el dolor de las operaciones más allá de las pactadas.
- RuleRegla
- The injured party may recover expectation damages (the value of the promised result less the result obtained) or, where that is hard to measure or seems excessive for a promise of this kind, reliance damages: expenditures made and detriment suffered in reliance, including pain and suffering from operations the patient would not have undergone but for the promise.
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- Paired with Hawkins in Part VII: the court explains the three damage interests (expectation, reliance, restitution) and allows a patient to recover on a reliance measure, including pain and suffering from a third, unnecessary operation, when the expectation measure is hard to value.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- Patient sued the surgeon for breach of a promise to improve her nose; verdict for the patient on the contract count; the court affirmed, discussing the reliance and expectation measures.
Facts
Alice Sullivan, a professional entertainer, was promised by Dr. O’Connor that two operations would enhance her appearance and improve her nose. After three operations her nose was worse and could not be repaired. She sued on contract and negligence theories; the jury found for her on the contract count.
Procedural posture
The judge instructed the jury on a reliance-type measure; the plaintiff waived her exception to the instruction’s limits; the surgeon’s appeal was rejected and the judgment affirmed.
Issue
What damages a patient may recover for breach of a surgeon’s promise of a particular result.
Holding
The patient could recover her out-of-pocket expenses, the worsening of her condition, and pain and suffering from the third operation; the court approved this reliance measure as proper in the circumstances while noting that expectation damages might also be available.
Reasoning
Justice Kaplan surveyed the expectation, reliance and restitution interests, warned against excessive recoveries for optimistic medical statements, and concluded that a reliance measure that includes the detriment of unnecessary operations fairly compensates without granting the speculative value of a perfect result.
Rule (own words)
When the promised result is hard to price, the law can instead put you back where you started: refund, the harm done, and the suffering you would not have gone through but for the promise.
What-ifs
- The patient had evidence of lost earnings as a performer because of the worse nose: consequential expectation damages if within contemplation.
- Only two operations were performed as agreed and the result was merely not improved: reliance recovery limited to the fee and any worsening; no extra pain and suffering.
- Negligence proven: tort damages including all pain and suffering, independent of contract.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
Why did the court hesitate over expectation damages for a doctor's promise?
What did she recover under the reliance theory?
How is Hawkins different?
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”