CaseSnappy Blog

Decoding Judgements: Examining Negligence and Damages in McFarlane

8 September 2023 | CaseSnappy Team

Small black and white Adidas trainers.


Welcome back to CaseSnappy's "Decoding Judgements" series. Today, we delve into intriguing aspects of tort law, specifically focusing on negligence and damages within the medical context. This week's case is McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 (HL), a significant landmark in Scottish tort law history that has carved out crucial principles of medical negligence.

Seeds of Negligence: Facts of the Case

This case revolves around the McFarlanes, a married couple, faced with unintended consequences following a negligently conducted vasectomy procedure operated by the Tayside Health Board. Despite assurances of a successful operation without any need for further contraception, the couple unexpectedly conceived a child, bringing forward the claim for the costs of rearing the said child.

Contending the Unexpected: Issues in the Case

The pivotal issue driving the case was whether the parents of the child could rightfully claim recovery for rearing costs from Tayside Health Board due to a negligently performed vasectomy. The McFarlanes argued that they were entitled to the reparation as the negligence resulted directly in the unanticipated child's birth. The Health Board, however, argued against this, stating that bringing a healthy child into the world is not a compensable loss.

Unplanned Outcome: The Verdict

The House of Lords delivered the decision favouring the Health Board, ruling that costs associated with raising a child cannot be recovered, notwithstanding how negligent the operation might have been. The judgement underscored the key idea that procreating a healthy child cannot be seen as a 'loss' worthy of reparation.

Reflecting on this, Lord Steyn noted: "Relying on principles of distributive justice I am persuaded that our tort law does not permit parents of a healthy unwanted child to claim the costs of bringing up the child from a health authority or a doctor. I would say that the claim does not satisfy the requirement of being fair, just and reasonable."

CaseSnappy: Simplifying Legal Complexity

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board provides a curious insight into the layered dynamics of tort law, particularly when it intersects with the realm of medical negligence. At CaseSnappy, we strive to untangle the law, making intricate legal judgements comprehensible for law enthusiasts, students, and professionals.

Stay in tune with us for our next piece in the "Decoding Judgements" series. Register for CaseSnappy for free and plunge into a pool of legal knowledge – made simple and accessible.

Get started
By using CaseSnappy, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.