She was impregnated with the wrong sperm. This is not a trivial matter.
Legally it is.
She was impregnated with the wrong sperm against her wishes.
As far as damages are concerned it very well may be.
Again, it is not the same legally as the basis for her complaint and damages are not strictly in keeping with the above.
Actually, it is her family and townspeople who come out looking like asses.
Not a gotcha question… Is this your professional opinion?
Nope. I am not a lawyer (assuming that is what you are asking).
OK. It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer about her chances in court. I suspect this will end with a NDA in place.
I’m not sure what universe you’re living in but for most people bringing a child into this world is a big decision involving many variables. This choice was taken away from this woman. The price of that screw up is WAAAAAY beyond $50K.
Are you under the impression that the semen was shipped directly to her rather than the clinic so she was in the position to check the label? The semen was sent to her doctor, who probably didn’t have any idea what the donor # was.
The only thing she got a refund for was the canceled order of additional semen.
So no, she wasn’t in any way compensated for their fuck up, just for the future services they didn’t go through with.
Oh, did you quote cases from Ohio too? I only saw references to NY, which isn’t where the family is from.
I don’t read it that way. See here:
Clearly the implication is she was refunded for the “offending” sperm. I don’t think she even completed the second order; it was just how she found out about the mistake.
Why would you think precedents from another state would not be relevant?
The majority of people want a kid of their own likeness. You see it all around the world. I guess all of these people should be ashamed of themselves ? If it is so important for all of those people to have a child of their own likeness, you think they’re not going to be upset and outraged in a situation like this ?
Precedents which reject the idea that damages can be assessed over issues of skin color ? What ? Are you saying blacks can’t or have never sued and won over cases involving their ‘skin color’ ? Race issues exist. I’m not sure why you’re trying to throw it under the rug in this particular case.
There is nothing wrong with her being upset that she was denied what she requested when it involved such a life changing matter and you can’t deny that there is a racial component in this case.
Did any of those involve a sperm bank improperly doing their job and causing a client to have a completely different offspring than what she had requested ?
They should be held liable for the massive screw up that is on their hands. Notice how you try to miminize it: ‘mixing up sperm’. But I won’t because it’s not a trivial mistake. Whatever their liability is monetarily is up for debate. But I would have no problem with them getting more than 50k. You can’t just go around letting these places off the hook for this type of mistake.
… and please, I don’t want to hear this nonsense that she had or has the option of giving away the child. As if the child is some commodity to be given away. We’re talking about a child which is growing inside of you and with whom you are bonding with in the process. I’m sure many of you ladies can relate to that. She can still love this child for her own uniqueness and still be justified in going after the sperm bank.
Okay, and your evidence for this is…?
Even if it was sent to her doctor, that doesn’t mean checking the label and verifying that bore the right number was unavailable to her.
What is your evidence for this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is not evident in any of the articles I’ve read.
Okay, fair enough. I will concede that these kind of errors can get a pharmacist in trouble.
In this case, I suspect the devil is in the details of the contract she signed with the sperm bank. This is where comparisons to pharmacies breakdown.
This just biology. Over ninety-five percent of people don’t ever make that decision.
I am not aware of any court that has ruled having Black skin as a basis for damages.
Because it’s generally not seen as something you can sue over.
There is something wrong with her being upset BECAUSE your daughter is biracial.
They are hypotheticals, so no. The point was that once a court rules that certain life is worth less than others, or that there is an inherent harm in being born not-White, then you introduce all sorts of arguments that such a thing is an aggravating or mitigating factor in any liability case. If she successfully argues she is MORE damaged because her kid is Black, someone could very easily say there have less financial culpability for injuring or killing a Black person for the same reasons: society views Black people as being worth less.
Why is it a MASSIVE screwup? Say they gave her the sperm of the requested donor’s twin brother. Is that a MASSIVE screwup? What about if the received sperm was from a similar looking guy?
Clearly she is treating her kid as a commodity when she argues she was damaged as a result of her kid being Black. I would also guess this uniqueness she loves doesn’t include any of the traits that make her look Black?
If this woman is going to be allowed to leverage anti black racism to get a bigger payout, does she get more money than the white couple who accidentally ended up with a half Asian baby? Do both of those couples get more money than the black couple who ended up with the baby who’s half anything other than black?
Black couple with a white baby could sue for all the sunblock they’ll need to start budgeting for.
I’m a lawyer. If this gets in front of a jury, she’ll win a pot of money. It won’t, because (1) there is no case law directly on point, and this is the sort of thing likely to be appealed for years and years at the summary judgment stage; and (2) there is no way in hell the sperm bank will allow this case to go to trial if they can’t get it dismissed.
They have ruled that you shouldn’t be discriminated against for being black … that is ruling on ‘skin color’ as you say … I don’t know why you keep trying to throw that out the window in this case when it is very relevant to the case. Black/white relations have had major problems(understatement) throughout history in his country. Why are you trying to deny or make that a nonissue in this case when it is obviously relevant ? …
again, see above … what with all the race based cases and issues throughout history in this country, how could you possibly come to that conclusion ?
once again, that is not up to you or me to judge. Like I said, most people want children of their own likeness. You must have a problem with most people in existence then ? …
Again, you choose to look at it this way because you have a personal gripe with this lady. You think she’s racist.
From all evidence, she’s perfectly ok with her kid. Has she talked about giving her away or regretted having her ? Absolutely she has not. As I said, she can love her for who she is but still be upset with the sperm bank.
why is it a massive screw up ?? lol … what the heck are we discussing here ? … We’ve discussed why it’s a massive screw up. Why you refuse to see that, I have no clue.
If she was treating her kid as a commodity, she would have ‘traded her away’ as some of you are suggesting she should do. She has given no indication that she would ever even consider that let alone do it.
That ‘uniqueness’ includes her as a whole being. Not because she is this or because she’s not that. I’m sure she has bonded with the child and loves her, whatever color or features she has. But, that does not mean that she still can’t be upset with the sperm bank and be justified in going after them in court.
Yes, but they have not ruled (AFAIK) that being born Black is a basis for damages.
That is not what I said.
Please learn how to use periods and punctuation.
I am not denying racism exists. I am saying that courts should not use racial prejudice as a means for establishing disparate values on life.
Wanting something, and suing for not getting it are two completely different things.
Then why is she suing alleging she has been damaged? You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, please explain to me in details why simply giving the wrong sperm is a massive screw-up? Again, if she had gotten sperm from the twin of the intended donor, would it be a massive screw-up? Probably not, right? Which highlights how the basis for it being a massive screw-up is not the act itself, but rather that she got something she doesn’t value.
Why would that be a logical conclusion?
What sense does it make to sue the sperm bank based on this uniqueness you claim she loves?
Now she’ll sue for negligence and probably win a couple mil.
Which is how it should be.