Caparo v Dickman (3) duty of care
- Created by: Molly Byrne
- Created on: 22-10-15 15:49
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
- Haley v London Electricity Board 1965.
- 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.
- He had been assaulted by his Father for a number of years.
- A mother had failed to protect her son from assault
- 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.
Comments
No comments have yet been made