McFarlane et al. v. Tayside Health Board, (1999) 250 N.R. 252 (HL)

• Case Date: November 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 250 N.R. 252 (HL)

McFarlane v. Tayside Health Bd. (1999), 250 N.R. 252 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

MacFarlane and Another (respondents) v. Tayside Health Board

(appellants)

Indexed As: McFarlane et al. v. Tayside Health Board

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde and Lord Millett

November 25, 1999.

Summary:

A husband underwent a vasectomy. Subse­quent tests revealed that his sperm counts were negative. Nevertheless, his wife became pregnant with their fifth child. The couple sued the defendant Health Board for dam­ages for negligence. The couple claimed damages for the wife's pain and distress from the pregnancy and damages for the costs relating to rearing the child. The trial court dismissed both claims. On appeal it was held that the husband and wife should be able to recover both types of damages. The Health Board appealed.

The House of Lords, per Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn and Lord Hope of Craig­head, dismissed the Board's appeal respect­ing the damages for pain and suffer­ing but allowed the appeal respecting the claim for damages for rearing the child, holding that these damages were not re­coverable. Lord Clyde and Lord Millett in the result would have allowed the appeal respecting both types of damages.

Damages - Topic 531

Limits of compensatory damages - Re­moteness - Torts - Recoverable damages - Consequential economic loss - [See Dam­ages - Topic 2543 ].

Damages - Topic 2543

Torts affecting the person - Wrongful pregnancy, birth or life - A husband un­der­went a vasectomy but his wife became pregnant with their fifth child - The couple sued a Health Board for damages for negli­gence - The House of Lords held that if there was negligence, the wife was entitled to damages for the pain and dis­comfort and inconvenience of the unwanted preg­nancy and birth - The court held however that the couple could not recover damages related to child rearing - It was not fair, just or reasonable to impose on the doctor or his employer liability for these eco­nomic losses.

Cases Noticed:

Sciuriaga v. Powell (1979), 123 Sol. Jo. 406, refd to. [paras. 10, 81].

Udale v. Bloomsbury Area Health Author­i­ty, [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1098 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11 et seq.].

Emeh v. Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority, [1985] 1 Q.B. 1012 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12 et seq.].

Thake v. Maurice, [1986] Q.B. 644 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13 et seq.].

Benarr and Another v. Kettering Health Authority (1988), 138 New L.J. 179, refd to. [para. 14 et seq.].

Allen v. Bloomsbury Health Authority, [1993] 1 All E.R. 651 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15 et seq.].

Crouchman v. Burke, 40 B.M.L.R. 163, refd to. [para. 15].

Robinson v. Salford Health Authority, [1992] 3 Med. L.R. 270, refd to. [paras. 15, 44].

Salih v. Enfield Area Health Authority, [1991] 3 All E.R. 400 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 44].

Allan v. Greater Glasgow Health Board, [1998] S.L.T. 580, refd to. [paras. 17, 70, 120].

Szekeres v. Robinson (1986), 715 P.2d 1076 (Nev. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 19, 71].

Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez (1991), 805 P.2d 603 (N.M. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

Johnson v. University Hospitals of Cleve­land (1989), 540 N.E.2d 1370 (Ohio Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21 et seq.].

Public Health Trust v. Brown F.L.A. A.P.P. (1980), 388 So.2d 1084 (Fla. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22 et seq.].

Sherlock v. Stillwater Clinic (1977), 260 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 23, 81].

Administrator, Natal v. Edouard, [1990] (3) S.A. 581, refd to. [paras. 24, 71].

L v. M, [1979] 2 N.Z.L.R. 519 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kealey v. Berezowski et al. (1996), 9 O.T.C. 1; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 708 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24 et seq.].

C.E.S. v. Superclinics (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1995), 38 N.S.W.L.R. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25 et seq.].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 2 A.C. 605; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 35, 87].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 40, 131].

Arbuthnott et al. v. Fagan and Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd. et al., [1995] 2 A.C. 145; 173 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 40].

Henderson et al. v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. et al. - see Arbuthnott et al. v. Fagan and Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd. et al.

Williams et al. v. Natural Life Health Foods Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 W.L.R. 830; 225 N.R. 368 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 40].

Gold v. Haringey Health Authority, [1988] 1 Q.B. 481 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 44, 78, 109].

Fish v. Wilcox, [1994] 5 Med. L.R. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Walkin v. South Manchester Health Au­thority, [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1543 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 44, 109].

Goodwill v. British Pregnancy Advisory Service, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 45, 89].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1991] 1 A.C. 398; 113 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 45, 90].

Z, Re, [1982] N.Z.A.R. 279, refd to. [para. 47].

XY v. Accident Compensation Corp., [1984] 4 N.Z.A.R. 219, refd to. [paras. 47, 117].

Mille X v. Picard, [1991] D. 566 (Cour de Cass. Civ. 1re), refd to. [para. 47].

Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v. Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd. et al., [1997] A.C. 254; 206 N.R. 30 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al., [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1509; 234 N.R. 121 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 51, 91].

Frost v. Chief Constable of South York­shire Police - see White et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et al.

Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, [1992] 1 A.C. 310; 131 N.R. 194 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

Alcock v. Chief Constable of South York­shire Police - see Copoc et al. v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police.

McKay v. Essex Area Health Authority, [1982] 1 Q.B. 1166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Anderson v. Forth Valley Health Board, [1998] S.L.T. 588, refd to. [paras. 77, 102].

Hickman v. Group Health Plan Inc. (1986), 396 N.W.2d 10 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 83].

Cockrum v. Baumgarther (1986), 447 N.E.2d 385 (Ill. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 84, 138].

McKernan v. Aasheim (1984), 687 P.2d 850 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 86].

Candlewood Navigation Corp. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., [1986] A.C. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Richardson v. Mellish (1824), 2 Bing. 229, refd to. [para. 108].

Mirams, Re, [1891] 1 Q.B. 594, refd to. [para. 108].

Dunlop v. McGowans, [1980] S.L.T. 129, refd to. [para. 111].

Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880), 5 App. Cas. 25, refd to. [para. 118].

South Australia Asset Management Corp. v. York Montague Ltd., [1997] A.C. 191; 222 N.R. 66 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 126].

Banque Bruxelles Lambert S.A. v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. - see South Australia Asset Management Corp. v. York Montague Ltd.

Harte v. McElway (1983), 707 F.2d 1544, refd to. [para. 134].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Common Law of Europe Case Books, Torts (1998), pp. 88 to 90, 161 to 164 [para. 26].

Fleming, The American Tort Process, pp. 26, 27 [para. 47].

Markesinis, B.S., The German Law of Obligations, vol. 11 [para. 47].

Markesinis, B.S., The Law of Torts: A Comparative Introduction (3rd Ed. 1997), pp. 155, 156 [para. 47].

Prosser and Keaton, The Law of Torts (5th Ed. 1984), p. 264 [para. 129].

Stewart, Angus, Damages for the Birth of a Child (1995), 40 J.L.S.S. 298, gen­erally [paras. 26, 47, 83]; p. 300 [para. 44].

Symmons, C.R., Policy Factors in Actions for Wrongful Birth (1987), 50 M.L.R. 269, generally [para. 106].

Trinidade and Cane, The Law of Torts in Australia (3rd Ed.), p. 434 [para. 53].

United States, Annotation (1998), 89 A.L.R.(4th) 632, generally [para. 47].

Counsel:

Colin Campbell, Q.C., and Laura Dunlop, for the appellants;

Anne Smith, Q.C., and Stephen Woolman, Q.C., for the respondents.

Agents:

Lawrence Graham, for the appellants;

Balfour & Manson, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on July 5, 6 and 7, 1999, before Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde and Lord Millett, of the House of Lords.

On November 25, 1999, the decision was delivered for the House of Lords and the following opinions were filed:

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 39 to 58;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see para­graphs 59 to 96;

Lord Clyde, dissenting in part - see para­graphs 97 to 122;

Lord Millett, dissenting in part - see paragraphs 123 to 153.