The Caparo Test - Summary Tort Law - Tort Law PDF

Preview

Summary

The Caparo Test in deciding on primary and secondary victims for psychiatric injury....

Description

The Caparo Test

 Duty of care developed from Donoghue v Stevenson- There is duties in tort to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonable foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.  Foreseeability test is objective  Anns v Merton London Borough- A duty of care arose in a particular factual situation was a matter of general principle. [ Policy reasons to make it arise]  Where a case raises an issue of law, as opposed to purely issues of fact, the defendant can make what is called a striking out application, which effectively argues that even if the facts of what the claimant says happened are true, this does not give them a legal claim against the defendant.  The Caparo Test: Caparo v Dickman- The basic test for a duty of care is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.  It is never sufficient simply to ask whether A owes B a duty of care. It is always necessary to determine the scope of the duty by reference to the kind of damage from which A must take care to hold B harmless  Objective test  Must be reasonably foreseeable that damage or injury would be caused to the particular defendant in the case, not people in general.  It is enough that the claimant is part of a category of people who might foreseeably be affected. There must be a special relationship of proximity between the claimant and defendant.  The courts are more willing to find that a duty of care was owed in an ‘ac’ case than in an ‘omission’ case.











Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialties- The situation they were both in meant that the defendant could reasonably be expected to foresee that his/her actions could cause damage to the claimant. Where justice and reasonableness are specifically referred to, it is usually because a case meets the requirements of foreseeability and proximity, but the courts believe there is a sound public policy reason for denying the claim- McFarlane v Tayside Health Board-[ Partner Vasectomy fail, birth of a healthy child] If finding that a duty of care was owed in a particular case might tend to undermine people’s sense of individual responsibility, then that is a factor which will weigh heavily against a finding that a duty of care was owed. [Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police]. Examples: allowing a responsible adult to escape some or all the consequence of his own foolhardiness by letting him sue. The courts will often refuse to find that a duty of care was owed in a specific case because doing so would harm the public interest. Example: Combat Immunity. The more novel a claim that a duty of care was owed in a particular case, the less likely it is that the courts will accept it....