duty of care

• Caparo test


  evolved from (Donoghue v Stevenson), arguable Caparo is better - more formulaic and structured, very simple to follow in court compared to D v S which is had to understand for a layperson

  • however, caparo can create uncertainty and inconsistency, as it contains terms like foreseeability and reasonable which are subjective
  • the more recent case of Robinson confirms that you only need to use Caparo in novel situations, this saves a lot of court times if a duty is already established
• proximity 


  there is no real definition of proximity, (Bourhill v Young) talks about closeness in time but this is somewhat ambiguous, difficult to apply in court
• must be fair, just and reasonable (Hill v CC West Yorkshire Police)


  this allows for public policy decisions, where the judge will look at the situation overall and whether they should impose the duty of care, they can refuthis allows for public policy decisions, where the judge will look at the situation overall and whether they should impose the duty of care, they can refuse even if the case passes the first two tests

  • this prevent floodgates being opened which would allow too many similar claims
  • allows emergency services to be protected as they need to act without the fear of being sued