Indeterminate Liability Act 1936 (1999)
Indeterminate Liability
Liability is indeterminate only when the number of claims or the size of the claims cannot be realistically calculated. Therefore, indeterminacy depends upon what the defendant knew or ought to have known regarding the number of claimants and the nature of their likely claims. Hence, liability will not be imposed if it may lead to liability in an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.
In assessing indeterminacy in this case, 23andMe is a genome-testing organisation whereby they electively choose to promote their DNA kits and its benefits to society as a whole. While this might suggest that there is an indeterminate class of individuals, the only individuals who are directly affected, are those who choose …show more content…
In South Australia, section 32 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (CLA) sets out the requirements that a risk must be foreseeable, not insignificant and in the circumstances, a reasonable person would have taken those precautions. Therefore, it must be established that 23andMe responded to a reasonable foreseeable risk of harm to Mr A by taking precautions that a reasonable person in their position would have taken. Under these conditions, it would be required for 23andMe to ensure that their clients, the individuals purchasing the kits, are aware of the reliability and accuracy of their DNA tests before providing them with the …show more content…
The issue which arises from this case is that it presents a new legal problem of genetic discrimination, whereby there is no legislation or case law on who should be held to owe a duty of care, and whether it is fair and just to uphold that a public genome testing facility should bare such a burden.
(a) Arguments To Support A Duty
In determining a duty, considerations must be given to preserve the coherence of other legal principle, which unquestionably governs the conduct in certain relationships . Therefore, in a world were genome-testing facilities are available to the public are becoming increasingly more common, it would be unjust for them not to be held to a degree of responsibility for providing negligent misstatements. For these genome testing facilities to suggest that they can detect whether you are carrying any genetic variations related to disease, potentially affecting every aspect of their life, to suggest that there is no degree of presumed responsibility is not coherent with other areas of the law. As shown in Mutual Life and Citizens’ the high court held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in giving advice as the defendant held a special skill, similar to the relationship between 23andMe and Mr
Liability is indeterminate only when the number of claims or the size of the claims cannot be realistically calculated. Therefore, indeterminacy depends upon what the defendant knew or ought to have known regarding the number of claimants and the nature of their likely claims. Hence, liability will not be imposed if it may lead to liability in an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.
In assessing indeterminacy in this case, 23andMe is a genome-testing organisation whereby they electively choose to promote their DNA kits and its benefits to society as a whole. While this might suggest that there is an indeterminate class of individuals, the only individuals who are directly affected, are those who choose …show more content…
In South Australia, section 32 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (CLA) sets out the requirements that a risk must be foreseeable, not insignificant and in the circumstances, a reasonable person would have taken those precautions. Therefore, it must be established that 23andMe responded to a reasonable foreseeable risk of harm to Mr A by taking precautions that a reasonable person in their position would have taken. Under these conditions, it would be required for 23andMe to ensure that their clients, the individuals purchasing the kits, are aware of the reliability and accuracy of their DNA tests before providing them with the …show more content…
The issue which arises from this case is that it presents a new legal problem of genetic discrimination, whereby there is no legislation or case law on who should be held to owe a duty of care, and whether it is fair and just to uphold that a public genome testing facility should bare such a burden.
(a) Arguments To Support A Duty
In determining a duty, considerations must be given to preserve the coherence of other legal principle, which unquestionably governs the conduct in certain relationships . Therefore, in a world were genome-testing facilities are available to the public are becoming increasingly more common, it would be unjust for them not to be held to a degree of responsibility for providing negligent misstatements. For these genome testing facilities to suggest that they can detect whether you are carrying any genetic variations related to disease, potentially affecting every aspect of their life, to suggest that there is no degree of presumed responsibility is not coherent with other areas of the law. As shown in Mutual Life and Citizens’ the high court held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in giving advice as the defendant held a special skill, similar to the relationship between 23andMe and Mr