| Harriton v Stephens | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Alexia Harriton (by her tutor George Harriton); Appellant v Paul Richard Stevens; Respondent |
| Decided | 9 May 2006 |
| Citation(s) | [2006] HCA 15, (2006) 226 CLR 52 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| (5:1) The doctor did not owe the child a duty of care. (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ; Hayne J not deciding; Kirby J dissenting) (6:1) The common law test for damages for negligence is incapable of application to a situation where the comparison is between life with disabilities and a state of non-existence. (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ; Kirby J dissenting) | |
Harriton v Stephens,[1] was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.[2][3]
- ^ Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15, (2006) 226 CLR 52 (9 May 2006), High Court.
- ^ Shiel, Fergus (10 May 2006). "Court says life is not a sentence". The Age. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
- ^ Pelly, Michael (10 May 2006). "Suing for disability ruled out". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search