Baldwin v. Sanders, 20195
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20195,20195 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Katherine L. BALDWIN, Respondent, v. Paul W. SANDERS, Jr., and Paul W. Sanders, III, Appellants. |
Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, for appellants.
Hollings, Hawkins & Morris, Charleston, for respondent.
This case involves the question of whether or not doctors performing a vasectomy on a husband entered into any contractual relationship with the wife who after becoming pregnant shortly after the operation instituted this suit. The appeal is from the order of the lower court overruling appellant's demurrer that the complaint did not state a cause of action. We affirm.
Respondent served her Complaint on February 18, 1975. In the Complaint she alleges that the appellants are doctors practicing in the County of Charleston; that in 1971 she and her husband determined to consult the appellants concerning the desirability and feasibility of sterilization of her husband, as a birth control measure; that her husband did consult with the appellants and made an agreement for an operation known as a vasectomy so as to sterilize him; that prior to the operation the respondent, Katherine L. Baldwin, signed a form provided by appellants and brought to her by her husband, in which she indicated her understanding that sterility would result from the operation; that she provided some of the funds to pay the appellants for their services in performing the said operation; that the appellants performed the operation and conducted a sterility test on her husband six (6) weeks after the operation; and in spite of the operation and the said test the respondent later became pregnant and gave birth to a child; and respondent alleges that the appellants had a contractual duty to inform her of the material facts concerning the operation and to perform the operation in a proper manner; and that the appellants have breached the said contractual duty, on account of which respondent claims damages.
The appellants served a timely Demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it appears upon the face of the Complaint that the same does not constitute a cause of action since the Complaint shows on its face that it is an action on a contract between the respondent's husband and the appellants, and the only connection which the respondent had with the alleged contract is her contribution of funds to her husband in order to pay the consideration required of him, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. United States
...state Supreme Court's awareness of the contemporary problems in this area is inferentially supported by language in Baldwin v. Sanders, 266 S.C. 394, 223 S.E.2d 602 (1976), affirming the trial court's refusal to grant a demurrer for failure to state a claim in a "wrongful pregnancy"5 case. ......
-
Phillips v. United States
...state Supreme Court's awareness of the contemporary problems in this area is inferentially supported by language in Baldwin v. Sanders, 266 S.C. 394, 223 S.E.2d 602 (1976), affirming the trial court's refusal to grant a demurrer for failure to state a claim in a "wrongful pregnancy"6 case. ......
-
Lydia v. Horton
...sufficient if it states any cause of action or it appears that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. Baldwin v. Sanders, 266 S.C. 394, 223 S.E.2d 602 (1976). A judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer. Russell, supra; Brown v. United Ins. Co., 268 S.C. 254, 233......
-
Scott v. McCain, 20836
...or if it appears respondent is entitled to any relief whatsoever. Williams v. Streb, S.C., 243 S.E.2d 926 (1978); Baldwin v. Sanders, 266 S.C. 394, 223 S.E.2d 602 (1976). Scott's complaint alleges as 1) That plaintiff is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Edgefield County School Distr......