The Caparo test (duty of care)
Under Caparo Industries v Dickman, a duty of care arises where three conditions are met: (1) the harm was reasonably foreseeable, (2) there was a relationship of proximity between the parties, and (3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
Last reviewed 14 June 2026
The three-stage test refined Lord Atkin's neighbour principle into a structured enquiry. It is most useful when a court is asked to recognise a duty in a novel situation.
In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court clarified that Caparo is not a universal test to be applied mechanically to every case: where an established duty already exists, the court reasons by analogy with precedent rather than re-running all three stages.
Key cases
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
- Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Frequently asked questions
What are the three stages of the Caparo test?
Reasonable foreseeability of harm; a relationship of proximity between the parties; and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Does the Caparo test apply to every negligence case?
No. After Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018), the full test is reserved for novel situations; established duties are decided by analogy with existing precedent.