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.
Related doctrines
Revising tort law for an exam?
Get structured revision notes and timed SQE1 practice that build on The Caparo test (duty of care).
Revising law for an exam?
Get the free “50 Must-Know Cases for UK Law Exams” guide — grouped by module with the ratio for each, sent to your inbox.