Waller v James

The case of *Waller v James* involved a child, Keeden Waller (the appellant), suing medical practitioners and a fertility clinic (the respondents) for negligence. The dispute arose from the appellant's birth with a serious genetic condition, Anti-thrombin 3 (AT3) deficiency, which led to significant disabilities. The parents had undergone an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure, and it was agreed for the purposes of the proceedings that the respondents had negligently failed to investigate and advise or warn the parents about the genetic risk of this condition, which posed a danger to their child.

The central legal issues before the High Court of Australia were whether the appellant, as the child born with the genetic condition, could recover damages from the respondents. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondents owed a duty of care to the unborn child to investigate and warn the parents about the genetic risks, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions regarding IVF or pregnancy termination. The court also had to consider whether a life with disabilities constituted actionable damage and if damages could be assessed by comparing such a life to non-existence.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeals, applied established principles of negligence. The court distinguished between a claim for physical injury arising from negligent medical care during pregnancy or birth, which is legally uncontroversial, and the claim for "wrongful life" in this case. While acknowledging the respondents' duty of care to the parents, the court ultimately found that a duty of care was not owed to the child in the manner required to establish a cause of action for wrongful life. The reasoning involved complex considerations of public policy, including the sanctity of human life and the potential impact of such claims on disabled individuals and familial relationships, as well as the difficulty in quantifying damages by comparing a life with disabilities to non-existence.

The appeals were dismissed, meaning the appellant was not permitted to recover damages on the basis of a wrongful life claim. The court's decision upheld the principle that while medical practitioners owe a duty of care to their patients, this duty does not extend to a right for a child to claim damages for being born with a disability, even if that disability was a result of negligent advice to the parents.