Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Johnson v. University Hospitals of Cleveland

540 N.E.2d 1370 (1989)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Johnson v. University Hospitals of Cleveland

Supreme Court of Ohio

540 N.E.2d 1370 (1989)

Facts

University Hospitals of Cleveland and three physicians (defendants) negligently performed a tubal ligation for sterilization purposes on Ruth Johnson (plaintiff). Subsequently, Johnson became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Johnson filed a negligence suit against defendants seeking damages for pain and suffering resulting from the pregnancy and birth, medical bills, and anticipated lifetime child-rearing expenses. The trial court granted Johnson damages of $12,500 associated with her pain and suffering and medical expenses. The trial court denied Johnson any recovery for child-rearing expenses. Johnson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her child-rearing damages. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Douglas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership