Facts
The plaintiff, A.X., and her husband, B.X., were married in 1994 and had three daughters together. After the birth of their third daughter, they decided not to have any more children and requested sterilization from Dr. F. of Spital Y. However, Dr. F. failed to perform the sterilization, resulting in the birth of a fourth child. The plaintiff brought an action against Spital Y. to obtain compensation for the maintenance costs of the unplanned child.
The court of first instance dismissed the claim, but the court of appeal condemned Spital Y. to pay compensation for the maintenance costs of the child. Spital Y. appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that the court of appeal had violated federal law by condemning Spital Y. to pay the maintenance costs of the child.
Considerations
3. The medical care contract and the doctor's liability
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the medical care contract concluded between the plaintiff and Spital Y. implied an obligation to sterilize. It found that the medical care contract was an enterprise contract within the meaning of articles 394 ss CO, with all the consequences that follow in terms of liability.
4. The concept of damage and the doctor's liability
The Federal Court examined the question of whether the maintenance costs of the unplanned child constituted damage within the meaning of the law. It found that the majority of the doctrine admitted that…