Description
Sperm Amounts to Property Owned by its Producer:
The Court of Appeal held that there was no authority, either domestic, Commonwealth or American, for the proposition that damage to a substance removed from a person's body could constitute personal injury after its removal. It was, however, clear for the purposes of claims in negligence that sperm banked at a licensed fertility unit amounted to property that was owned by its producer. It could, therefore, be said that in addition to any personal injury claim, the claimant had a distinct action against the defendant in the law of bailment. The defendant had acquired exclusive possession of the sperm and had held itself out as having special skills for preserving it. As breach of bailment was closely akin to breach of contract, damages would be recoverable under the rules relating to damages for mental distress in contracts aimed at non-pecuniary benefits.
