White mother sues sperm bank for reparations for her black child

[SteveRogers]

Given that I highly doubt that this anywhere near deliberate, this mother has no case.

If this was deliberate, or any kind of practical joke on the other hand....

That just very simply is not how lawsuits work.

How is it even legal to ask for sperm from a particular racial group? That's clearly discrimination.

Um, discrimination in the literal sense of the word, but there's no constitutional issue here. A sperm bank is a private company, but more importantly, a mother as a private individual has the basically absolute right to discriminate with regard to whose DNA ends up in their uterus.

This woman has a very strong case. Anyone who doubts that simply doesn't understand the law. If the sperm bank was negligent in giving her sperm from the wrong donor, and there's really no other way this could have happened, then she's entitled to some form of damages. Now whether she's entitled to all of the compensation she seeks is a matter for a jury. She may, for example, not ultimately get much in the way of her claimed damages for having to go to the black barber shop, etc.

I think a lot of people here are being overly harsh on the mother for emphasizing the race factor. For the ordinary, non-racist person, carrying a child for nine months and then giving birth to a child of a different race than expected would be an extremely traumatic experience. It doesn't mean she doesn't love the child or that she won't be a good mother. But it does probably mean she's legally entitled to some emotional damages. It needs to be pointed out that she'd probably have a strong case even if the sperm bank had just gave her sperm from a different white donor than the one she requested. That would still implicate all the same breach of contract/ breach of warranty claims, just maybe not the emotional damages.

And one more thing: she's obviously seeking "damages", not "reparations."

[SteveRogers]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

[SteveRogers]

If the court has any common sense, this case will be dismissed, citing lack of responsibility by sperm banks to catalog and sell gametes.

That doesn't make any sense.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. What legal duty does a sperm bank owe to the clients, beyond delivering human sperm? The sperm donor is not under any obligation to provide DNA to the court for testing. The integrity of the product is unenforceable; therefore, I'd argue that the sperm bank has no legal duty to deliver anything other than viable human sperm.

What legal duty does FedEx owe to a customer, beyond delivering, like, a box of some sort?

I don't know the details of whatever contract a customer usually signs with a sperm bank, but I'm fairly certain it contains specifications about which sperm is being bought. The sperm bank has a legal duty to provide the requested sperm because that's what they contracted to do. Their whole business is cataloging and selling gametes. If the mother paid for sperm from a white donor but got sperm from a black donor, then the sperm bank delivered non-conforming goods and someone somewhere in the process was very, very negligent. This gives rise to a number of fairly standard legal claims. Yes, the plaintiff has to prove the elements of their claim, and that will include introducing evidence that the agreement was for specimen X, but plaintiff got specimen Y. That's not likely to be difficult in this situation. 

[SteveRogers]

What legal duty does FedEx owe to a customer, beyond delivering, like, a box of some sort?

Does the recipient get to sue FedEx, if they deliver the wrong package? You need a better hypothetical.

Someone does. I might be the sender or it might be the recipient depending on the circumstances, but FedEx undertakes a duty to someone to deliver something from point A to point B, and if they don't do so, then there's been a breach of contract, and someone gets to sue.

But I guess the more appropriate metaphor is one that cuts out the middleman. If you order a tv online from Best Buy's website, and you pay for that TV, and they deliver you a printer or a cell phone or a barrel of apples instead, there has been a breach. How is this different?

And you seem to be conflating two unrelated questions again:
1. Did the sperm bank have a duty to deliver the requested sperm?
2. If so, can the plaintiff prove in court that that duty was breached?

Why would you expect anything different? If the sperm bank defended their mistake in court, and got a legal ruling absolving them from responsibility, the sperm bank business would go out of business.

 

Lol what?

[SteveRogers]

But I guess the more appropriate metaphor is one that cuts out the middleman. If you order a tv online from Best Buy's website, and you pay for that TV, and they deliver you a printer or a cell phone or a barrel of apples instead, there has been a breach. How is this different?

If we continue using the retailer model, this woman used a consumable good, and then tried to sue for damages, after the fact. Do you believe this woman has been injured by having a child with more melanin than she's has?

Regarding the nullification of implied warranty for sperm banks, it seems like you should understand how that would undermine the entire industry. And I'm not conflating legal concepts. The duty of sperm banks to their clients, and the ability of the plaintiff to provide evidence are two unrelated legal concepts, but both apply in this situation. I've also questioned the existence of any damages incurred by the plaintiff.

The product that she bought isn't the child. The child is a human being that can't be bought or sold. The product she bought is a sperm sample from a specified donor, and that's a product that the law allows businesses to sell, and it's a product that the sperm bank entered into a contract to deliver. You clearly have some sort of ethical objection to the concept of sperm banks. That's fine, but make that objection. You suggested in your original post that congress should outlaw the practice. There are arguments in support of that view, but that's not the argument you're making now. You are arguing that as a matter of law, sperm banks fundamentally cannot assume a legal duty to deliver the specific sperm that is requested and paid for by the client, even when the sperm bank enters into a contract stating "In return for money, we promise to give the customer sperm from donor X." Why would that be? If any other business signed such a contract for any other legal product, a duty would be created, no? Given that sperm banks do exist and are legal, why shouldn't the concept of implied warranties or any other aspects of contract law apply to them as they would to any business?

And I too question whether the mother is entitled to all of the damages she is seeking, but at the very least she probably suffered some initial emotional trauma that's worth some compensation.

[SteveRogers]

The woman has a right to be angry with them.  She doesn't have to be such a dick about it.

Yes, exactly this.  Bit of a fine line to walk, but also the only decent line to walk.

Guys, it's not clear at all that she's "being a dick about it." Isn't it possible that the media is cherry-picking statements from the mother's statements and court documents that emphasize the racial aspect of this while giving short shrift the actual legal arguments being advanced? The media's reporting on court cases tends to be all around garbage.