article: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep
Followed the link from youphoric and just had to post this one. My apologies to anyone who reads the article. :)
Court: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep
Detroit Free Press [linkThursday, February 24, 2005 ( Read more... )
Court: Man can sue for distress over surprise pregnancy, but sperm were hers to keep
Detroit Free Press [linkThursday, February 24, 2005 ( Read more... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Right, but what I'm thinking is that he couldn't sue to get the child support payments dropped, because, like you said, that's for the child and is owed regardless of the behavior of the child's parents, but I would think he could sue for financial damages, in which case she would owe him $800/mo and he would still owe the child $800/mo in child support. He would still be liable for child support, so it wouldn't be a waiver, but she would be liable to him for the financial damages she's caused him. She owes him, he owes the child. I think that's an important distinction between suing for financial damages and suing to be released from responsibility for child support. Not sure it would work, but I think it would be worth trying.
Reply
Reply
"Phillips is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment Thursday."
Reply
i guess my main point is that it wouldn't be worth trying because he'd lose. he's a doctor. no doubt he consulted an attorney and didn'tlike the answer he got.
Reply
Why is that a consideration, though, in determining liability? People get sued all the time for sums of money they couldn't possibly afford. That doesn't mean they're not liable. Also, I'm not sure that, in this case, it's safe to assume it would bankrupt her.
If you bankrupt her, you're essentially taking money out of the kid's mouth.
You bankrupt her if you sue her over something else, too, though. Parents have no immunity simply because they're parents.
Yes, he might get damages for emotional distress, but a lawsuit for damages because you have to pay child support won't incur the sensitivity of the court.It may incur the sensitivity of the court, but I don't see how that would change the legal merit of the case. It seems that by allowing the lawsuit for emotional damages to go through, the court is acknowledging that there is some merit to that case. If so, and if it can be shown that the woman's same actions were a direct a cause of ( ... )
Reply
-- It is a consideration because the foundation of torts is compensation. You have to understand that most torts aren't intentional. Most of the time, courts are awarding damages for accidents (e.g. old lady spills coffee on herself, it burns the shit out of her, she has to get lots of surgeries-- it pays to sue McDonald's a lot more than if she spilled hot coffee on herself at her relatives house in the hood). Courts do consider how much they are going to award based on the Plaintiff's ability to pay it. If they want to teach McDonald's a lesson, they'll award more than just what would compensate the lady for the surgeries. They wouldn't need to teach her relatives a lesson any amount of damages will make them hurt. They'll look at how much her insurance paid for the injuries and only charge them for the days she missed work.
You bankrupt her if you sue her over something else, too, though. Parents have no immunity simply because they're parents.Right. Courts ( ... )
Reply
Okay, but I guess what I'm asking is, isn't the damages awarded a separate matter? I mean, I thought they first determined whether or not, for instance, she's responsible for financial damages, and then, after that's been determined, that's when they start considering numbers. I don't know, that's why I was looking forward to what you'd have to say about all of this! :)
Reply
Reply
- Duty (standard of care-- reasonable or strict liability)
- Breach of Duty
- Causation (Cx)- some causal chain b/w D’s breach and P’s consequences
----Cause in fact: But-for test: (yes, no)
----Proximate Cause (Px) (legal Q for judge)- was D’s conduct close enough to P’s harm that we want to attach liability?
- Harm (Damages (Dx))
-----economic harm- harms suffered b/c life is more expensive (compensatory)
-----non-econ. harm- “pain and suffering”- harms suffered after econ. harm; residual inconvenience (restorative)
-----Punitive Dx- not designed to compensate P; law’s way of punishing
- P’s lawyer usually paid on contingency fee; 33% (D’s lawyers paid by the hr)
You need the bolded elements... those elements can be fulfilled in different ways (e.g. proximate cause or cause in fact would fulfill the Cx element).
Reply
tag. For example:
A. Blah-bitty-blah
1. blahhhhh blah blah
2. bo-bittidy-blah-blah
B. Pft!
1. whatever
- ridiculous!
Just so you know. :)
Reply
C'mon, we can't have a policy that permits men to repossess sperm! At the end of the day, you have to be responsible for your deposits.
But anyway, it makes perfect sense to me.
Reply
I had a real-life friend who once performed oral sex on a guy, but she made it clear she didn't want to get any of his ejaculate in her mouth. When the time came, he held her head so she could get out of the way. So she held it in her mouth and a little later kissed him and, uh, gave it back.
As much as I didn't need to hear all of that, I couldn't help but to laugh when she told me! All of that's to say that, no, I don't think there's a duty to swallow.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment