Case Study Of Caparo's Duty Of Care

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 injury which will …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