--- title: "Sullivan v. O'Connor" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/sullivan-v-oconnor --- # Sullivan v. O'Connor Sullivan v. O'Connor is a leading case on the availability of reliance damages as an alternative to expectation damages in breach of contract actions, particularly in the context of physician-patient contracts. The court held that reliance damages may be the more appropriate measure where expectation damages are too speculative or difficult to calculate. The case is frequently paired with Hawkins v. McGee to illustrate the different measures of contract damages. ## Citation 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973) ## Year 1973 ## Court Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ## Facts Alice Sullivan, an entertainer, contracted with Dr. O'Connor, a plastic surgeon, to perform rhinoplasty to improve the appearance of her nose. The doctor promised to enhance her beauty and make her nose more attractive. After three operations instead of the anticipated one or two, Sullivan's nose was left in a worse condition than before, described as having a concavity and asymmetry that required further corrective surgery. Sullivan sued for breach of contract based on the doctor's promise to improve her appearance. ## Procedural History The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded damages. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which affirmed the judgment but clarified the proper measure of damages. ## Issue What is the proper measure of damages for breach of a physician's contractual promise to achieve a specific surgical result, and whether reliance damages or expectation damages should apply? ## Holding The court held that reliance damages, rather than expectation damages, were the more appropriate measure in this case. The plaintiff could recover her out-of-pocket expenditures, the worsening of her condition (the difference between her original nose and her post-operative nose), and pain and suffering from the additional operations beyond what was contemplated. The court declined to award full expectation damages because the value of a beautiful nose was too speculative to calculate. ## Reasoning Justice Kaplan reasoned that while expectation damages are the standard contract remedy, they are not always appropriate, particularly in medical contexts where the value of the promised result is inherently subjective and difficult to quantify. Reliance damages serve the purpose of restoring the plaintiff to the position she would have been in had the contract never been made, which is more administrable and fairer in this context. The court allowed recovery for the worsening of her condition as a reliance-type loss because, had the contract not been made, she would have retained her original appearance. Pain and suffering from the third, unexpected operation was also recoverable because it went beyond what was contemplated under the contract. The court acknowledged the policy concern that full expectation damages might discourage doctors from attempting innovative procedures. ## Impact Sullivan v. O'Connor became a foundational case for teaching the reliance interest as an alternative damages measure in contract law. It has been widely cited in medical malpractice contract cases and in broader discussions about when reliance damages are preferable to expectation damages. The case influenced the Restatement (Second) of Contracts Section 349, which permits reliance damages as an alternative when expectation damages are too uncertain. ## Key Quotes - For breach of the patient-Loss agreement, recovery is limited to losses caused by the operation, including the worsening of the patient's condition and pain and suffering above and beyond that which would have resulted had the contract been performed. - It is not hard to see why the courts should be cautious about imposing such a remedy in malpractice cases. The doctor-patient encounter is not usually a commercial transaction, and the expectations generated are hard to define. - The plaintiff may recover her out-of-pocket expenditures, the worsening of her condition, and the pain and suffering and mental distress involved in the third operation. ## Related Cases - hawkins-v-mcgee - hadley-v-baxendale - jacob-and-youngs-v-kent - peevyhouse-v-garland-coal ## Exam Relevance Sullivan v. O'Connor is commonly tested alongside Hawkins v. McGee to assess whether students can distinguish between expectation and reliance damages and determine which measure is appropriate in different factual contexts. Exam questions may present scenarios where expectation damages are speculative and ask students to calculate reliance damages. Students should be ready to discuss policy reasons for preferring one measure over another. ## Study Tips - Create a comparison chart between Hawkins v. McGee (expectation damages) and Sullivan v. O'Connor (reliance damages) to see how similar facts lead to different damages measures. - Understand the three components of reliance damages in this case: (1) out-of-pocket expenses, (2) worsening of condition, and (3) pain and suffering beyond what was contemplated. - Note the policy considerations: the court worried that full expectation damages in medical cases might discourage doctors from attempting beneficial procedures or making any assurances to patients. - Remember that reliance damages put the plaintiff back where she started (status quo ante), while expectation damages put the plaintiff where performance would have placed her. ## Doctrine Established Reliance Damages as Alternative to Expectation Damages --- Source: [Sullivan v. O'Connor — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/sullivan-v-oconnor)