Caparo 1990 Flashcards
What was it
Leading case for duty of care
Established 2 elements for it
What was the first element
1) incrementally and by analogy
Based on PRECEDANT
Court should refer to prev cases and rulings on similar cases when trying to determine DOC
How did the first element of Caparo contrast with Ann’s
The first stage states courts should refer to precedent whereas in Ann’s, wilberforce says not necessary to refer to previous cases
Stage 3 of Caparo
3 stage test
- generally didn’t reach this stage
- only did when a new situation arose with no previous precedant
If courts enter stage 2, they r decided whether to create new areA DOC exists
3 stage test
1 foreseeability
2 sufficient proximity in terms of relationship between parties
- Must be just and reasonable to impose a DOC
Explain foreseeability in Caparo
Was the damage to claimaint foreseeable?
Similar to Ann’s but foreseeability not enough by itself
Case application for Caparo
Vowles vs Evans
Facts/argument of vowles vs Evans
vowles was an injured rush by player suing his referee for failing to exercise care
Evans argued ’s no precedent to support an amateur ref owing DOC to adults
Court Vowles v Evans
Applied Caparo
- Foreseeable harm
- Was a proximate relationship
- Reasonable to establish DOC
Problems with Caparo
“Proximity” “foreseeability” “fair” all very fluid and ambiguous d
Lord bridge - they are just socially desirable labels
Why switch from Ann’s?
Limit situations negligence arise
Reassert control over lower courts
Close floodgates
Limit impact on public bodies that rely on public purse
- liability and damages impact funding
