Sullivan v. O’Connor

296 N.E.2d 183, 363 Mass. 579 (1973)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sullivan v. O’Connor

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
296 N.E.2d 183, 363 Mass. 579 (1973)

Play video

Facts

Alice Sullivan (plaintiff), a professional entertainer, contracted with Dr. James O’Connor (defendant) to perform two operations on her nose to make it more attractive. O’Connor performed the two surgeries but failed to improve her nose and instead worsened her appearance. After the first two unsuccessful surgeries, O’Connor performed a third surgery that failed to correct Sullivan’s disfigurement. Sullivan sued O’Connor for malpractice and breach of contract. Her negligence claim was denied, but she won on the breach-of-contract count. The trial judge instructed the jury that damages could be awarded on the breach-of-contract claim to compensate Sullivan for both her out-of-pocket expenses and her disfigurement, related emotional distress considering the nature of her profession, and pain and suffering for the third surgery. The jury awarded damages in an amount that substantially exceeded the amount of Sullivan’s out-of-pocket expenses. O’Connor appealed the amount of damages awarded.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaplan, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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