Legal Research
Cases
Harriton v Stephens

Harriton v Stephens

Case [2002] NSWSC 461 12 June 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 461

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20558/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11-12 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 June 2002

PARTIES :

Alexia Harriton by her tutor George Harriton (Plaintiff)
Paul Richard Stephens (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : G. Segal (Plaintiff)
P.R. Garling SC/S. Woods (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman (Plaintiff)
Blake Dawson Waldron (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - rubella during pregnancy - whether duty of care owed by the medical practitioner attending on mother to child subsequently born - if so, content of duty - child born profoundly disabled due to rubella virus - whether breach of duty of care to child - causation of infection in utero not by reason of neglect on part of defendant. "WRONGFUL LIFE" claim - whether maintainable - impossibility of determining whether "damage" suffered - impossibility of assessing compensatory damages - public policy considerations.

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act, 1969

CASES CITED: Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v Abelson 398 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1990)
Azzolino v Dingfelder 337 S.E.2d 528 (N.C. 1985)
Beardsley v Wierdsma 650 P.2d 288 (Wyo. 1982)
Becker v Schwartz 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1986)
Blake v Cruz 698 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1984)
Bruggeman v Schimke 718 P.2d 635 (Kan. 1986)
Bryan v Mahoney (1994-95) 182 CLR 609
Burton v Islington Health Authority; De Martell v Merton & Sutton Health Authority (1992) 3 All ER 833
CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Limited (1995-96) 38 NSWLR 47
Cowe v Forum Group, Inc. 575 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 1991)
Curlender v Bio-Science Labs 106 Cal. App. 3d 811, 165 Cal.Rptr 477
De Martell v Merton & Sutton Health Authority (1992) 3 All ER 833
Dumer v St Michael's Hosp. 233 N.W.2d 372 (Wis. 1975)
Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460
Elliott v Brown 361 So. 2d 546 (Ala. 1978)
Ellis v Sherman 515 A 2d 1327 (Pa. 1986)
Emeh v Kensington & Chelsea & Westminster Health Authority (1985) QB 1012
Flanagan v Williams 623 N.E. 2d 185 (Ohio Ct App. 1993)
Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) 2 AC 455
Garrison v Medical Ctr of Del. Inc. 581 A.2d 288 (Del. 1989)
Gleitman v Cosgrove (1967) 227 A 2d 689
Greco v United States 893 P.2d 345 (Nev. 1995)
Harbeson v Parke-Davis Inc. 656 P 2d 483
Hayne v Nyst (unreported, Williams J, Qld Supreme Court, 7 October 1995)
Haynes v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60
Kassama v Magat (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, February 2001)
Kush v Lloyd 616 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1992)
Lacroix v Dominique [2001] MBCA 122
Lininger v Eisebaum 764 P 2d 1202 (Colo. 1988)
Mahony v Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Limited (1985) 156 CLR 522
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board (2000) 2 AC 59
McKay & Anor v Essex Area Health Authority & Anor [1982] 1 QB 1166
Melchior & Anor v Cattanach & Anor [2001] QCA 246
Nelson v Krusen 678 S.W. 2d 918 (Tex. 1984)
Parkinson v St James & Seacroft University Hospital (2001) 3 All ER…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harriton v Stephens

Details

AGLC: Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 461
Case: [2002] NSWSC 461
Decision Date: 12 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Harriton v Stephens, the plaintiff, who was conceived during a period when his mother was infected with the rubella virus, sought damages for injuries sustained due to that infection. The defendant, a medical practitioner, had attended to the mother during her pregnancy but did not diagnose the rubella. The case reached the High Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the medical practitioner owed a duty of care to the child, and if so, what that duty entailed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the child's claim for damages could be maintained given the unique nature of the injury – the "wrongful life" argument – and whether it was possible to assess the compensatory damages.

The court deliberated on whether the medical practitioner had a duty of care to the unborn child. The High Court concluded that while there was a duty of care owed to the unborn child, the content of that duty was not sufficiently defined to hold the practitioner liable. The court also determined that the child's claim for damages was not maintainable. This decision was grounded in the impossibility of determining whether the child suffered "damage" by being born into a profoundly disabled state rather than not being born at all. The court found it impossible to assess compensatory damages for such a scenario and considered public policy implications that might arise from allowing such claims.

The reasoning behind the court's decision was multifaceted, encompassing the conceptual challenges of a "wrongful life" claim and the practical difficulties in quantifying damages. The court highlighted that such claims could lead to unpredictable outcomes and might have broader societal impacts. The court concluded that the claim was not maintainable due to these insurmountable difficulties in establishing a causal link between the defendant's actions and the damages claimed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court held that the medical practitioner was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to the rubella infection during pregnancy, and the plaintiff's claim for damages was not maintainable.

Orders