- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster AHA (1985)
Core Principle: A plaintiff's own act can only be considered a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act breaking the chain of causation) if it was unreasonable.
I. Facts of the Case:
Core Principle: A plaintiff's own act can only be considered a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act breaking the chain of causation) if it was unreasonable.
I. Facts of the Case:
- Plaintiff underwent sterilization concurrently with an abortion, allegedly performed negligently.
- Plaintiff discovered subsequent pregnancy at 20 weeks gestation.
- Plaintiff chose to continue the pregnancy.
- Child was born with congenital abnormalities.
- Plaintiff sought damages for:
- Pregnancy
- Birth
- Costs of raising a handicapped child
- The trial judge initially ruled that the plaintiff's decision not to have an abortion constituted a novus actus interveniens.
- Appeal Allowed: The Court of Appeal overturned the initial ruling.
- Damages Awarded: Damages were awarded to cover the full extent of the consequences resulting from the defendant's negligence.
- Reasoning (Slade LJ): The court should rarely (only in the most exceptional cases) deem it unreasonable for a woman to refuse an abortion.
- This case clarifies the threshold for a plaintiff's actions to break the chain of causation in negligence claims. It establishes a high bar for deeming a woman's decision to continue a pregnancy as "unreasonable."
- While subsequent House of Lords rulings (unspecified in this extract) have restricted damages for raising a healthy child after a "wrongful birth," damages are still recoverable for the additional costs associated with raising a disabled child in such circumstances.
0 Comments