Q1 Content

• The Caparo Test


  The Caparo Test is a 3 Part Test:

  DAMAGE: could the person predict the damage would happen? Seen in the case of Kent V Griffins.

  PROXIMITY: This is the time and space, or close relationship, seen in the case of Mcloughin v O'Brien.

  REASONABLE: Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty? seen in the case of Hill V Chief.
• Evaluation of the Caparo Test

  Each time a case went to court, the Caparo Test was applied. This wasted time and was changed in 2018 due to the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire police. This case allowed you to sue the police and the Caparo Test is not used if there is an established duty.
• Breach of Duty


  Firstly, we apply an objective test, seen in the case of Nettleship v Western. The test is 'Would the reasonable person have known this is dangerous?'

  There are then 6 factors the court take into consideration:

  1. Defendant's profession
  2. Defendant's age
  3. Risk of harm
  4. Characteristics of the claimant
  5. Benefits outweighs the risks
  6. Reasonable precautions
• Evaluation of Breach


  The test for breach is an objective test, which is unfair. This demonstrated in the Nettleship V Western case where a learner driver was held to the same standard as a qualified driver.
• Damage


  We must apply factual causation using the 'But for' test, asking 'would the negligence still have happened, because of the defendant's actions'.

  Then we apply Legal Causation, where the defendant must be the substantial and operative cause of the injuries.

  Finally, we must discuss the remoteness of the damage, The damage caused cannot be so small that it cannot be predicted.
• Breaks in the chain of causation

  1. Actions of a third party (seen in Robinson v Post Office)
  2. The claimant's actions (seen in Mckew v Holland & cubits ltd)
  3. Natural intervention (seen in Carlogie Steamship Co LTD v Royal Norwegian Government)
  4. 'The evidence speaks for itself' (seen in Mahon v Osborne)
  5. Thin skull principle/egg shell rule (Seen in Smith v Leech brain and Co Ltd)