751 N.E.2d 773 (2001)
The mother had gone to the doctor to be sterilized so that she would not incur the financial burden of having a child. The mother subsequently became pregnant anyway and gave birth to a healthy child. She sued for negligence and breach of contract.
- The appellate court held the prior rule preventing recovery for child-rearing as a result of a "wrongful pregnancy" had been impliedly overruled.
- Therefore, the mother could assert damages for the costs associated with raising the child.
- It emphasized it was not creating a new cause of action for "wrongful pregnancy," rather it was merely applying typical medical malpractice standards of recovery.
- It held it was foreseeable that there would be financial consequences which result from a failed sterilization and the sterilization would be a proximate cause of the damages.
- It noted the financial damages should be incurred by the party better positioned to absorb them.
- While requiring abortion or adoption was unreasonable, the doctor was allowed to submit evidence of mitigation.
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Also see: Abortion legal definition - http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abortion-legal-definition.html
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law