Burke v. Rivo
Massachusetts Supreme Court
406 Mass. 764, 551 N.E.2d 1 (1990)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Carole Burke (plaintiff) had three children. Burke and her husband were struggling financially, and she wished to return to work. Burke told her doctor, Elliot Rivo, that she did not want to have more children. Rivo advised Burke to undergo a tubal ligation using a method called bipolar cauterization. Bipolar cauterization, however, was not a foolproof sterilization technique. There was a risk of recanalization, allowing a woman to get pregnant. Rivo did not tell Burke of the risk of recanalization. Burke agreed to the procedure, and Rivo performed a bipolar cauterization on Burke. The next year, Burke became pregnant with her fourth child. One of Burke’s fallopian tubes had recanalized. After giving birth to her fourth child, Burke underwent a second tubal ligation using a different, more certain method. Burke sued Rivo for negligence. The trial court found in favor of Burke. It certified to the supreme court the question of whether Burke could recover damages for the costs of raising her fourth child. The supreme court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
