Harriton v Stephens

The case of *Harriton v Stephens* concerned appeals brought by three appellants against the respondents, who were medical practitioners. The appellants alleged that the respondents had been negligent in failing to provide their mothers with sufficient information regarding a genetic condition, which, had it been known, would have led to the termination of the pregnancies. The appellants claimed that as a result of this alleged negligence, they were born with disabilities and sought damages for wrongful life. The appeals were heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Spigelman CJ, Mason P, and Ipp JA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the respondents owed a duty of care to the appellants to provide their mothers with information enabling an informed choice about pregnancy termination, and whether the harm suffered by the appellants, namely their existence with disabilities, was recoverable in law. The Court also considered whether the appellants could be beneficiaries of any contract between their mothers and the medical practitioners, and whether policy considerations justified a departure from established principles of tortious liability. A further issue was whether the alleged omissions by the respondents had caused the appellants' disabilities.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed each appeal. The majority reasoned that the law of negligence does not recognise a cause of action for "wrongful life" because it would require the court to compare the appellants' existence with a disability to a state of non-existence, a comparison that is logically impossible and contrary to the fundamental compensatory principle of tort law. The Court held that damages are awarded to compensate for loss or harm, and that the "harm" of being born with a disability cannot be compensated by awarding damages for the loss of a non-existent life. Furthermore, the Court found that the alleged omissions did not cause the appellants' disabilities, but rather the disabilities themselves were the condition of their birth. The contractual claims were also dismissed.