Recently the High Court dealt with a claim by parents against a doctor for negligence after the wife became pregnant in spite of the doctor having performed an operation on her to prevent her falling pregnant again.
Part of the claim was for the cost of raising the child. The insurance company argued that the allowance for the future financial expenditure the parents would incur should be reduced because the parents would get enjoyment from the child. The High Court rejected that argument , saying:
The head of damages that is relevant in the present case is the financial damage that the parents would suffer as a result of their legal responsibility to raise the child. The benefits to be enjoyed as a result of having a child are not related to that head of damages. The coalminer, forced to retire because of injury, does not get less damages for loss of earning capacity because he is now free to sit in the sun each day reading his favourite newspaper. Likewise the order for damages to the parents for future financial expenditure is not to be reduced by the enjoyment that they will or may obtain from the birth of the child.