1: Duty of Care

• Lord Atkin's neighbour principle was narrowed by the tripartite test in Caparo Industries v Dickman.
• In modern cases the Courts take the approach outlined in Robinson v CCoWY. A duty is owed if:

  1. Is shown in existing principles/precedents
  2. If none apply, to consider close analogies;
  3. If the situation is a novel one, to use the Caparo test
• Robinson v CCoWY [2018]

  1. Follow established principles
  2. Reasoning by analogy
  3. Use Caparo if novel
• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]


  Duty owed to your neighbour, anyone affected by your acts or omissions.
• Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

  1. Damage must be foreseeable to a reasonable person
  2. D and C must be proximate
  3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D
• Proximate

  1. C and D were physically close
  2. There’s a relationship between C and D
• Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D

  Is there any good reason why the D should not owe C a duty of care?