levo

Tort: Negligence

The Caparo test and the modern approach to duty

  • 3 things to know
  • Components 2 and 3

Overview

Three parts of the Caparo test, reasonable foreseeability and proximity in the Caparo test.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

State the three parts of the Caparo test.

Numbers

What did Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] decide about the police?

Numbers

How did Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] change the approach to duty?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    State the three parts of the Caparo test.

    Model answer

    Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] asked first whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable. The second question is whether the parties stand in a relationship of proximity. The third is whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

  2. 2

    What were the facts of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]?

    Model answer

    Caparo bought shares in a company relying on audited accounts that overstated the profits. The House of Lords held that the auditors owed no duty to a member of the public buying shares.

  3. 3

    What does reasonable foreseeability mean at the duty stage?

    Model answer

    Reasonable foreseeability asks whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen harm to someone in the claimant's position. Harm that nobody could anticipate gives rise to no duty.

  4. 4

    What is meant by proximity in the Caparo test?

    Model answer

    Proximity means legal closeness between claimant and defendant in time, space or relationship. Proximity does not necessarily require physical nearness.

  5. 5

    What considerations arise at the fair, just and reasonable stage?

    Model answer

    The third stage lets a court weigh policy, such as the danger of defensive practice or a flood of claims. A court may refuse a duty on this ground even where foreseeability and proximity are present.

  6. 6

    What did Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] decide about the police?

    Model answer

    Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] concerned the failure to catch a serial killer before his last victim. The House of Lords held that the police owe no general duty to individual members of the public when investigating crime. A duty of that kind was thought not to be fair, just and reasonable.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Tort: Negligence, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.