The Duty Of Care In The Case Of The Caparo Industries Ltd V. Dickman

737 Words 3 Pages
The duty of care in respect of psychiatric illness is subject to special restrictions and requirements for all types of duty of care in respect to psychiatric illness to arise, the psychiatric illness must be a recognised psychiatric illness (RPI), but not free-standing mental injuries such as grief, distress, anxiety or shock. In the case of the Carly if her mental condition is proved on the grounds of the medical evidence then she will be the primary victim of the dangerous situation created by David. Primary victims are those involved mediately or immediately as participants in the traumatic event, who are within the range of foreseeable physical injury. It needs to be proven that David has reasonably foreseen that he might suffer some personal …show more content…
To show that David owes Carly a duty of care the test given in the case of Caparo needs to be applied. The facts of the Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] are C purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts, which stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3M. In fact Fidelity had made a loss of over £400,000. Caparo brought an action against the auditors D claiming they were negligent in certifying the accounts. It was held that no duty was owed due to insufficient proximity. Lord Bridge in this case illustrated that the law has moved on, the Anns approach might lead to the failure to weigh …show more content…
Similarly in this case David could foresee the harm of using the lighter fuel as it is a flammable substance and Carly being his friend and a guest of his party was in the zone of danger where the burning incident took place. As David owes a duty of care towards Carly and the other guests at the party he was at the fault and according to the s.4 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 fault means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a liability in tort. The facts of McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] can be applied where C was employed as a painter on an oil rig of D. C was off duty and witnessed a series of massive explosions and destruction occurring on the rig (Piper Alpha fire disaster). In this case Stuart-Smith LJ said that the class of participant includes those who are in the actual area of danger created by the event, but escapes physical injury by chance or good fortune as well as those who are not actually in danger, but because of the sudden and unexpected nature of the event, reasonably thinks that

Related Documents