Question one - Lecture notes 8 PDF

Preview

Summary

Very important lecture notes especially since students are self isolating...

Description

Question one Anns 1978 and caparo

Consider relevant features The case law which is the first call of law South Yorkshire… don’t need to do analysis for it in other cases there is a precedent It has already been decided Only when it is novel that there has to be some framework- whether a duty exists or not Supreme Court- Attorney Council Case law first to talk about- Robinson- summary Question one Claim for hurt and suffering- claim for bringing up the child Had decided their Husband had a vicitomy- doctor failed to tell them autoinversion- wife got pregnant Proximate relationship with doctor and patient Only looking at policy reasons about duty - The damage which flows Raising child is the policy issue House of Lords agreed it wasn’t suitable for the – benefits of raising a child- they still get the benefits. All of these weigh up. The court was saying there must be a benefit in having a child Policy factor in that case Notion Policy that a disabled child is worse less than a normal child. -

Not disturb McFarlane Will allow the cost for the difference Don’t want to say a disabled child is worse less than a normal child, they cost more tlike a helper special school, wheelchair they are claimable



It’s the insurance company who pays

-

Rees Mum is disabled she was legally blind Concerned of her ability to raise them Failed sterilisation Decided not to have an abortion

-



Gave birth to baby and sued for costs Distinguishing McFarlane Said no difference for disability – difficult to draw the line 5,000 pounds Seized on that and awarded 15,000 pounds It fits naturally into negligence law Shows harm Loss of reproductive autonomy- right to choose whether she wanted a baby



Awardered upbringing costs Cattanach v Melchior 4 to 3 In Queenstown it was changed but in other Aus states may have to sue for case of upbringing

-

C v M could be applied in NZ. Progressive approach, usually takes more cue from Canada

Duty owed to father: Whitehead v Searle - Wasn’t proximate relationship to doctor, father wasn’t - Mother committed suicide as a result of negligence - He sued - Proximity and forseeability Wrongful conception- give

Wrongful birth- gives birth when she wouldn’t have, did not screen for disability correctly Wrongful fertilisation- can specific the characteristics of donor- ethnicity - Not husbands sperm In Singapore

-

ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd Loss of genetic affinity Parents intended to have their child, but they did not have a child that was wholly theirs Did not have a blood bond

Ethics Ireland- claim for wrongful life - Doctors negligence - Put them into a no life position- they would not have been born as those children

Kirby J – some disabilities were so bad no life would have been bette-r 6 to 1 minority...