Caparo v Dickman (3) duty of care

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Caparo v Dickman 1990
    • Caparo purchased shares in fedility in reliance of the accounts which stated the company had made 1.3 mil. They had actually lost £400,000. Caparo bought an action against the auditors claiming negligence in certifying the accounts.
      • No duty of care was owed as no proximity between the auditors and caparo.
      • Gave a 3 stage test in establishing a duty of care
        • Use the test where there is no precedent or analogous precedent.
    • 1. Was the harm suffered by the clm a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the dfs act?
      • Haley v London Electricity Board 1965.
        • blind clm tripped over a hammer whihc df had placed to stop people walking along path.
        • reasonably foreseeable a blind pedestrian could trip
    • 2. were the clm and the df in a relatioship of sufficient proximity?
      • Proximity does not describe physical closeness
      • Just need a relationship
    • 3. would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
      • under consideration of the circumstances
      • XA v YA 2010
        • A mother had failed to protect her son from assault
          • He had been assaulted by his Father for a number of years.
            • Not fair just or reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort law resources »