Duty of Care — The Caparo Three-Stage Test
Authority: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)
A duty of care arises where:
- Foreseeability — damage of the relevant type was reasonably foreseeable to the claimant.
- Proximity — a sufficiently close relationship existed between the parties.
- Fair, just and reasonable — it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty in the circumstances.
All three limbs must be satisfied. The courts also use the incremental approach: extending duty by analogy with established categories.
Established Duty Categories (no need to run the full Caparo test)
- Road users to other road users.
- Employers to employees.
- Manufacturers to end consumers (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562).
Psychiatric Injury — Special Rules
- Primary victims (within the zone of physical danger): duty owed if physical injury foreseeable (Page v Smith [1996] AC 155).
- Secondary victims (witnesses): must satisfy Alcock control mechanisms (Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310): close tie of love and affection; proximity in time and space; perception by own unaided senses.
Pure Economic Loss
- No duty as a general rule for pure economic loss caused by a negligent act (Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin [1973] QB 27).
- Exception — negligent misstatement: duty arises where defendant voluntarily assumes responsibility and claimant reasonably relies (Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465).
Omissions and Third-Party Acts
- Generally no duty to act positively or control a third party.
- Exceptions: assumption of responsibility, creation of a dangerous situation, special relationships.
Common Exam Traps
- Confusing foreseeability of damage type (duty/remoteness) with foreseeability of the claimant.
- Applying Alcock criteria to a primary victim — wrong; use Page v Smith.
- Assuming pure economic loss always sounds in tort — check for assumption of responsibility.
Exam tip: When facts involve professional advice causing financial loss, always flag Hedley Byrne assumption of responsibility rather than general Caparo analysis.