Wilbur v. Kerr

←

Wilbur v. Kerr (1982)
the Arkansas Supreme Court

→

Dr. Kerr botched a vasectomy operation on Mr. Wilbur. When Mrs. Wilbur became pregnant, the couple sued for damages from the "wrongful birth" caused by the doctor's negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the doctor and ruled that the husband and wife could not recover those damages. The supreme court affirmed, holding that it is contrary to public policy to allow damages associated with the unplanned child. Dudley, J., dissented and was joined by Adkisson, C.J.

2593946Wilbur v. Kerr1982the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

275 Ark. 239

Virgil WILBUR & Wilma WILBUR, His Wife v. Robert L. KERR, M.D. et al.

Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court

No. 81-174. --- Delivered: Mar. 8, 1982.

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion Dudley

DAMAGES—WRONGFUL BIRTH OR WRONGFUL CONCEPTION AS RESULT OF NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF VASECTOMY—EXPENSES OF RAISING CHILD NOT AWARDED AGAINST DOCTOR PERFORMING NEGLIGENT ACT—AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.—Where the parents of a normal, healthy child seek to recover the expenses of raising that child from a doctor who negligently or unsuccessfully performed a vasectomy on the father resulting in the birth of the unexpected child, held, damages for the expenses of raising an unwanted, healthy child are denied as against public policy; however, the Supreme Court does not hold that a doctor performing such a negligent act should not have to pay for that act; he would be responsible for any and all proper damages connected with the operation and connected with the pregnancy, inasmuch as these are valid damages that may be recovered in such cases.

Appeal from Baxter Circuit Court, Robert W. McCorkindale, II, Judge; affirmed.

Bailey & Paden, P.A., for appellants.

Sidney P. Davis, of Davis, Cox & Wright, for appellees.

[Opinion of the court by Justice DARRELL HICKMAN. Dissenting opinion by Justice ROBERT H. DUDLEY, joined by Chief Justice RICHARD B. ADKISSON.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse