SULLIVAN V. O’CONNOR, Supreme Judicial Ct. of MA, 1973. 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183

Document Sample
SULLIVAN V. O’CONNOR, Supreme Judicial Ct. of MA, 1973. 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 Powered By Docstoc
					CONTRACTS
SULLIVAN V. O’CONNOR, Supreme Judicial Ct. of MA, 1973. 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183. History: Plaintiff won a jury verdict for $13,500.00 against Defendant for breach of contract; Judge instructed on two issues of liability; Jury returned verdict for Plaintiff on contract and verdict for Defendant on negligence; the judge then instructed on damages; Defendant’s exceptions—Judge erred in allowing the jury to take into account other stuff than the Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses, judge’s refusal of a charge that said Plaintiff couldn’t recover for pain and suffering from the 3rd operation or for impairment of Plaintiff’s appearance and mental distress; Plaintiff excepted to judge’s refusal of a charge that said Plaintiff could recover the difference in value between the nose she was promised and the nose she had after the operations; Plaintiff waives this exception and her others if the court overrules the defendant’s exceptions Facts: Defendant O’Connor performed plastic surgery on Plaintiff Sullivan’s nose; Sullivan was a professional entertainer; her nose was long and prominent, but after 3 operations her nose was concave to about mid-point where it became bulbous and from the front was flattened and broadened; the two sides of the tip had lost symmetry; not fixable w/further surgery; payments for O’Connor’s fee and hospital expenses were stipulated at $622.65 Issue(s): Did the judge err on the issue of damages? Holding: Defendant’s exceptions overruled; Plaintiff’s exceptions waived Analysis: B/c of Defendant’s breach, pain and suffering from 3rd operation were compensable; the first two were not b/c Defendant’s exceptions fail b/c Plaintiff was entitled to recover for the worsening of her condition (primarily b/c she was in the entertainment business and appearance effects her career), and not just her out-of-pocket expenditures; Plaintiff also entitled to recover for the pain and suffering of her 3rd operation; Expectation—put promisee in position would have been in if promise performed; prettier nose was expected Reliance—put promise in position would have been if promise never made Restitution—put promsior in position would have been if promise not made


				
DOCUMENT INFO