Tort Law - Duty Of Care

TORT LAW -DUTY OF CAREMcFarlane v Tayside Health card - An AnalysisINTRODUCTIONWhen the stopping point of Court of Appeals was made in MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board , it had echoed throughout the courts of United Kingdom for atleast for some years . The major subject in the MacFarlane case center around the apparent motion whether or non a healthy child who was born(p) due to the negligent advice given by the vivify promptly just after a sterlisation process is authorise to wages or not . In MacFarlane case , House of Lords nem con decided that a healthy child is not entitled to receive compensation thereby over ruling an analogous opposing ruling given by the Inner House of the Court of sitting in the same caseThe plaintiffs [McFarlane] R1 and R2 were husband and wife . The couples had already had four kids and the wife had to go for employment to cater the additional monetary needs as they had already moved to a large size residence and incurred increased expenses to bring up their wards collectable to this , couples have decided not to have further wards . set ahead the husband R1 had undergone a vasectomy . Medical advice was tendered to couples to take contraceptive arctic measures till the final results of their sperm analysis released . Then , medical checkup advice was given to R1 that his sperm count was found to be shun and hence it was not necessary for him to continue to take contraceptive safety measures . The couple pursued the medical advice and unfortunately , R2 became pregnantIn the initial court decision , Lord Gill brushed out the learns by the plaintiff .

He opined that childbirth and pregnancy did not result in a personal injury and the realize of being a parent is inestimable in pecuniary terms and that the advantages of parenthood status surpass any genetic loss even so Lord Gill decision was reverse by Inner House on appeal and it was spy that the advantages of parenthood could not surpass the pecuniary loss sustain due to unwanted pregnancy . Aggrieved by the inner business firm decision , the defendants appealed to the House of LordsIn appeal , House of Lords observed that the claim for the wrongful conception would not be entertained . even so , on the appeal , the wrongful birth claim was allowed . majority were of the opinion that the pregnancy and the child birth were more or less undesirable incidents which the vasectomy was intended to put off . R2 could line up for the discomfort ,pain and inconvenience of the pregnancy and for any incidental expenses that was incurred presently as a consequence of the unwanted pregnancy . However , neither R1 nor R2 would be entitled to recover the cost of manner of speaking up the child . Lords Hope and Slynn observed that it was not ` credible , fair and just `for the Health Board or doctor to be held accountable . It was cited by the House of Lords that the principle of permeant justice thwarted the claim from succeeding (Maclean Alasdair 2000ANALYSISThe ruling in McFarlane v Tayside HB [1999] WLR...If you want to get a rich essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .