Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
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.
What did Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] decide about the police?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.