https://www.startribune.com/judge-drastically-reduces-11-million-jury-award-in-wrongful-conception-vasectomy-lawsuit/601384557

A civil court case in Minnesota has set precedent for the state in a trial by a man who sued a urulogy clinic. After a vascectomy, a nurse misread a result, saying the operation was a success when he was still shooting live rounds. Four years later when his wife became pregnant, the results were revisited and he sued for malpractice

The jury in the trial analyzed all the forms of damages and counterclaims from the two sides. Weighing emotional damages, the costs of carrying a pregnancy to term, the 'loss of companionship' euphemism. And from that, the jury was given specific instructions to subtract the value the child would bring to the family over the course of its life, the value of a son or daughter. They determined that to be $0.00, one of the few human beings to be judged literally worthless in a court of law.

This $0 value for an unwanted human life was upheld on appeal despite the strenuous ethical objection of a horrified counsel for the urology clinic who described it as perverse and unjustified.

So it begs the question. If a jury is going to place a dollar amount on the recreational sex of a married couple, place a value to the burden of pregnancy, write a number for the emotional toll of fatherhood- what should the value of a son or daughter be? Are the couple left with a toxic asset, a worthless mouth to feed, a ball and chain?

If you pay for a service and that service was never completed correctly? The cost incurred.

So:

The cost of the vasectomy
+
The cost of an abortion

OR

The cost of the vasectomy
+
The cost of raising the child (INCLUDING College)

The jury was very specifically instructed and required to determine the value a baby will bring to the family by enriching their lives, to be subtracted. In a civil case you must find a net harm on the balance, not a one sided prosecution. The value of a newborn being cradled, a daughter's first steps, an extra set of hands around the house, a son to care for you in your sunset years and carry on your name when you are gone. They were asked to determine the value of this life and found it to be $0
Kid born with that chip on the shoulder

Welcome to Hell

The US only cares about embryos and fetuses.

Exactly. If they deemed a child was worth something they would have to actually invest in them. Can't have that.

The only honest answer would be you can't put a pricetag on a child.
As T3XBOT said the other expenses should be carried by the clinic, if you can proof a mistake happened.

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Jul 8 2025 12:37am

The value is zero because they NEVER WANTED THE BABY which is why they got a VASCECTOMY.
Not sure what part you are struggling with, if some one dumps concrete on my lawn and i sue them they do not get to counter sue for the value of the concrete.

i hate when people try to equate one thing to another. concrete and the act of dumping concrete are not the same as conceiving a human life.

You "can't put a price tag" on pretty much anything the civil courts are putting a price tag on. Peace of mind, a relationship, pregnancy, sex. The judge in the case even specifically cited the normal costs of a surrogate mother as a reference to put a dollar value onto the burden of a woman carrying a 'wrongful conception'. The entire point of the court case is to determine the value of these non-goods, non-services, so that they can sue over them. The jury determined what the value of sex was, what the cost of pregnancy was, how many dollars your emotions are worth. They even had precedents on risk and exposure for waiving values, such as the inherent emotional jeopardy associated with being in a personal relationship negating the monetary value of someone else compromising it. All those values translated to a fungible currency tradeable for concrete.

They were required to also determine the value of a human life and the benefit it will bring to a family. They absolutely do get to deduct the 'value of the concrete', that was right in the jury instructions and judge on appeal. It was up to them to determine whether that concrete dumped in their yard that they got to keep and benefit from, had inherent value or not. To a jury, is a human life just a burden and will bring only the costs associated with disposing of the unwanted little brat? A worthless little unwanted concrete blob dragging you down, with no redeeming merit, with no reason to be alive, and nothing but the grace of legal codes forbidding a post-birth abortion to force them to maintain such a toxic asset. Well, that's the view of the jury, at least. A life is worth $0