Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - 363 Mass. 579
tl;dr:
An entertainer sued her surgeon for botching her 2-part nose job surgery (which required 3 parts).Video Summary
Case Summary
In Sullivan v. O'Connor (1973), Alice Sullivan sued Dr. James O'Connor because he failed to improve her nose's appearance after two agreed-upon surgeries. Despite undergoing three surgeries, her nose became disfigured, causing her physical and emotional pain. Sullivan, a professional entertainer, sued for breach of contract and negligence.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Sullivan for the breach of contract claim but not for negligence. The court allowed her to recover out-of-pocket expenses, damages for her worsened condition, and damages for pain and suffering from the third surgery. Dr. O'Connor appealed, claiming Sullivan should only recover expenses.
The court upheld the decision, allowing Sullivan to recover for her reliance interest, which aimed to return her to her pre-contract position. This was due to the contract involving personal service affecting her appearance and well-being, and Dr. O'Connor's breach causing harm beyond just performance failure.
This case highlights how courts determine damages in breach of contract cases based on the contract's context while balancing protection of contractual expectations and compensating for personal injuries. It also illustrates the distinction between breach of contract and negligence claims in medical malpractice cases.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff sued the defendant surgeon for breach of contract and malpractice after a plastic surgery on her nose resulted in disfigurement, pain, and other damages. The jury found the defendant liable for breach of contract but not for malpractice. The judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff could recover her out-of-pocket expenses related to the operations and damages resulting directly from the defendant's breach of promise. The plaintiff cannot recover for loss of earnings as there was no proof that it resulted from the breach. The defendant argues that the judge erred in allowing the jury to consider anything beyond the plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses. The plaintiff waived her objection to the judge's refusal to allow her to recover the difference in value between the promised nose and the nose after the operations. Massachusetts law recognizes and enforces agreements between patients and physicians to achieve a specific result, but clear proof is required, with instructions to the jury emphasizing this requirement and considering factors such as the complexity of the operation in determining whether a given result was promised.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.