Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire
The House of Lords’ refusal to award damages for the cost of raising children born as a result of negligence has rightly been subject to substantial criticism. Much of this has focused on the handling of the economic loss aspects of such claims, and on the problematic moral arguments raised in suppo...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sweet and Maxwell
2022
|
| _version_ | 1797110169447956480 |
|---|---|
| author | Auckland, C Goold, IL |
| author_facet | Auckland, C Goold, IL |
| author_sort | Auckland, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The House of Lords’ refusal to award damages for the cost of raising children born as a result of negligence has rightly been subject to substantial criticism. Much of this has focused on the handling of the economic loss aspects of such claims, and on the problematic moral arguments raised in support of this refusal. While these are legitimate criticisms, there are further problems with the approach of the courts to maintenance costs that have not been fully examined. In both 'McFarlane v Tayside Health Board' and later 'Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust', some judges considered that, in order to calculate the damages, benefits accruing to the claimants from the child’s existence (however unintended) would have to be set-off against the losses claimed, that is, the costs of raising the child. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:51:03Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:639e42d5-4c2f-4db2-86ee-a8aec6ce6154 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:51:03Z |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | Sweet and Maxwell |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:639e42d5-4c2f-4db2-86ee-a8aec6ce61542023-07-14T09:08:30ZOffsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mireJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:639e42d5-4c2f-4db2-86ee-a8aec6ce6154EnglishSymplectic ElementsSweet and Maxwell2022Auckland, CGoold, ILThe House of Lords’ refusal to award damages for the cost of raising children born as a result of negligence has rightly been subject to substantial criticism. Much of this has focused on the handling of the economic loss aspects of such claims, and on the problematic moral arguments raised in support of this refusal. While these are legitimate criticisms, there are further problems with the approach of the courts to maintenance costs that have not been fully examined. In both 'McFarlane v Tayside Health Board' and later 'Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust', some judges considered that, in order to calculate the damages, benefits accruing to the claimants from the child’s existence (however unintended) would have to be set-off against the losses claimed, that is, the costs of raising the child. |
| spellingShingle | Auckland, C Goold, IL Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title | Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title_full | Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title_fullStr | Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title_full_unstemmed | Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title_short | Offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases: a way through the post-McFarlane mire |
| title_sort | offsetting damages in wrongful conception and birth cases a way through the post mcfarlane mire |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aucklandc offsettingdamagesinwrongfulconceptionandbirthcasesawaythroughthepostmcfarlanemire AT gooldil offsettingdamagesinwrongfulconceptionandbirthcasesawaythroughthepostmcfarlanemire |