Q2. One of the leading cases on the duty of care in tort is Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990]. In an essay of not more than 1,000 words, explain the three parts of the Caparo test.
In this landmark case on establishing the duty of care, Lord Bridge enunciated a three-part or fold test for establishing the existence of a duty of care between a plaintiff and a defendant. This test has become known as the “Kaparo test”. In this test, for a claim by the claimant against the defendant for alleged breach of duty of care and therefore negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must establish three main things or elements of the tort of negligence. First, that the harm, loss, injury or damage allegedly caused by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable; …show more content…
Here, the author states, the plaintiff will have to convince the court that there exist the notions or factors tending to show reliance, control, assumption of responsibility by the defendant and vulnerability. This, according to the author, is a principle-based proximity that was considered in Jaensch v Coffey [1984] by Deane J and that there is also a rule-based proximity as was the House of Lord’s consideration in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire …show more content…
This, as was stated in the Canadian cases of Cooper v Hobart [2001] and Hercules Management Ltd. V Ernst & Young [1997], is an issue of fact that depends on the circumstances of each particular case. If, in the court’s opinion, it would be unfair, unjust or against public policy reasons to impose the duty of care on the defendant under the prevailing circumstances, then the court will decline to find the existence of a duty of care. According to Ward (2009), the court will also consider the practical impacts of imposing liability and decide whether or not a finding of the existence of a duty of care in any given situation will open flood gates of litigation on the same subject matter in future. This was the case in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] where the court held that imposing a duty of care on the police towards the general public to investigate all murder cases would be against public policy reasons and would place an unreasonable burden on the law enforcement officers. This reasoning was also upheld in Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales [1998] and Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2002]. Further, as Ward (2009) points
In this landmark case on establishing the duty of care, Lord Bridge enunciated a three-part or fold test for establishing the existence of a duty of care between a plaintiff and a defendant. This test has become known as the “Kaparo test”. In this test, for a claim by the claimant against the defendant for alleged breach of duty of care and therefore negligence to succeed, the plaintiff must establish three main things or elements of the tort of negligence. First, that the harm, loss, injury or damage allegedly caused by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable; …show more content…
Here, the author states, the plaintiff will have to convince the court that there exist the notions or factors tending to show reliance, control, assumption of responsibility by the defendant and vulnerability. This, according to the author, is a principle-based proximity that was considered in Jaensch v Coffey [1984] by Deane J and that there is also a rule-based proximity as was the House of Lord’s consideration in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire …show more content…
This, as was stated in the Canadian cases of Cooper v Hobart [2001] and Hercules Management Ltd. V Ernst & Young [1997], is an issue of fact that depends on the circumstances of each particular case. If, in the court’s opinion, it would be unfair, unjust or against public policy reasons to impose the duty of care on the defendant under the prevailing circumstances, then the court will decline to find the existence of a duty of care. According to Ward (2009), the court will also consider the practical impacts of imposing liability and decide whether or not a finding of the existence of a duty of care in any given situation will open flood gates of litigation on the same subject matter in future. This was the case in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] where the court held that imposing a duty of care on the police towards the general public to investigate all murder cases would be against public policy reasons and would place an unreasonable burden on the law enforcement officers. This reasoning was also upheld in Sacco v Chief Constable of South Wales [1998] and Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2002]. Further, as Ward (2009) points