The case of caparo and its establishment of a tripartite test in establishing a duty of care just the latest attempt by the judiciary to articulate a general test the establishment of a duty of care concepts of foreseeability and neighbourhood as mentioned by Lord Aitken in Donaghue and Stevenson. The basic premise of Capro is that in order for there to be liability in negligence three elements must be satisfied and those elements are foreseeability of damage, the relationship of proximity between the parties and finally it must be fair just and reasonable to apply such a duty before discussing the particulars of the tripartite test set out by Lord Bridge it is first useful to gain an understanding of the origins of the duty of care and its
…show more content…
This remained the case until the decision in the case of Home Office versus Dorset Yacht Company 1970 were the House of Lords held by a majority that there was a duty of care owed by the Home Office to the plaintiff. The court recognised that in deciding this case it was extending the principle of Donoghue into circumstances which were novel. This was further extended in Anne’s where Lord Wilberforce set out a two-stage test which was diverged from Donoghue which was to be the basis upon which a duty would be determined …show more content…
In this case negligence by a building subcontractor led to the installation of a defective floor in a factory. The floor had to be repaired at substantial cost the owner of the factory. Free variety of reasons not all of which are clear, the armatures not sue the main contractor in contract as you might have been expected to do, but instead chose to pursue the subcontractor in tort. Because of the explicit nature of the expansion in this case objections to its reasoning set in almost immediately, criticisms were concerned with the fear of indeterminate liability and prospect of releasing a large number of unmerited and potentially oppressive claims thus opening the judicial floodgates secondly there was concern among the judiciary that the traditional relationship between court tort and contract was being disrupted with adverse consequences that the legal and commercial
This remained the case until the decision in the case of Home Office versus Dorset Yacht Company 1970 were the House of Lords held by a majority that there was a duty of care owed by the Home Office to the plaintiff. The court recognised that in deciding this case it was extending the principle of Donoghue into circumstances which were novel. This was further extended in Anne’s where Lord Wilberforce set out a two-stage test which was diverged from Donoghue which was to be the basis upon which a duty would be determined …show more content…
In this case negligence by a building subcontractor led to the installation of a defective floor in a factory. The floor had to be repaired at substantial cost the owner of the factory. Free variety of reasons not all of which are clear, the armatures not sue the main contractor in contract as you might have been expected to do, but instead chose to pursue the subcontractor in tort. Because of the explicit nature of the expansion in this case objections to its reasoning set in almost immediately, criticisms were concerned with the fear of indeterminate liability and prospect of releasing a large number of unmerited and potentially oppressive claims thus opening the judicial floodgates secondly there was concern among the judiciary that the traditional relationship between court tort and contract was being disrupted with adverse consequences that the legal and commercial