Harriton, Waller And Australian negligence law: is there a place for wrongful life?
Following the decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Harriton and Waller, the controversial action for wrongful life has been thrown back into the public spotlight. This article examines the legal and public policy dilemmas arising from a wrongful life claim in light of the Court of Appeal's reasons for its decision in the jointly heard cases of Harriton (by her tutor) v Stephens; Waller (by his tutor) v James; Waller (by his tutor) v Hoolahan (2004) 59 NSWLR 694 and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising the claim within the Australian tort system. It will be argued that each of the legal elements comprising the claim fall squarely within the traditional tort framework and that public policy considerations favouring recognition of the claim outweigh those raised against it.
Kapterian
Gisele
G
Gisele.Kapterian@gmail.com
D020152:Antithrombin III Deficiency / Q000151:congenital*; D001315:Australia; D030881:Disclosure; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008297:Male; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009517:New South Wales; D011247:Pregnancy; D011640:Public Policy; D012410:Rubella Syndrome, Congenital; D026712:Value of Life; D015974:Wrongful Life