Sullivan v. O'Connor

Facts

Alice Sullivan, a professional entertainer, had plastic surgery on her nose by O'Connor, a surgeon. The jury could find that O'Connor knew her profession. It could also find that he promised to enhance her beauty and improve her appearance. Her nose had been straight, but long and prominent. O'Connor undertook, by two operations, to reduce its prominence and somewhat to shorten it, so that it would look more pleasing with her other features. That is not what happened. Sullivan had to undergo three operations, and her appearance got worse. Her nose now had a concave line to about the midpoint, where it became bulbous. Seen from the front, it was flattened and broadened from the bridge to the midpoint, and the two sides of the tip had lost symmetry. Further surgery evidently could not improve it. Sullivan did not show that the change in her looks had cost her any employment. The parties stipulated that her payments covering O'Connor's fee and hospital expenses came to $622.65. The jury found for Sullivan on the contract count, but for O'Connor on the negligence count.

Issues

1. May a patient recover from a surgeon for breach of a promise to achieve a result, and what must the patient show to prove the promise?
2. When a surgeon breaks such a promise, is the patient limited to her out-of-pocket expenses, or may she also recover for the worsening of her condition?
3. Can a patient recover for pain, suffering and mental distress in an action for breach of contract against a physician?

Holding

Sullivan was not limited to her out-of-pocket expenses. She could also recover for the worsening of her condition and for the pain, suffering and mental distress of the third operation, items compensable on either an expectancy or a reliance view. The defendant's exceptions were overruled.