SDGCK. A model appears in this photo. In Jamaican patois and also in English, we say in tort law that there is liability if there is a duty of care, breach of the duty and the victim suffers harm as a result of the breach. Read Caparo vs. Dickman in Patois.

A model appears in this photo. It is not Warren A. Lyon. 

  

• SDGCK.   In  Jamaican patois and also in English, we say in tort law that there is liability if there is a duty of care,  breach of the duty and the victim suffers harm as a result of the breach.      Read Caparo vs.  Dickman in Patois.  
  

  
  

  in answering if there is a duty of care, we need to find if the law under existing cases has already applied a duty to the type of scenario  we are facing if its a consumer product or vehicle accident or injury on a public transit vehicle or fire escaping one property and damaging neighboring properties.  A duty of care applies in all of the above circumstances.   

  
  

  If there is no existing duty acknowledged by the law for the current scenario before the Court involving that client, we need to determine whether the law would allow us to apply a duty in our reasonable assessment of the scenario. We followed previously the Anns Test from Anns vs. Merton. Now, we follow the Caparo vs. Dickman test.    

  
  

  The Anns Test and Its Downfall

  
  

  
  

  
  

  The Anns Test and Its Downfall

  Anns v Merton London Borough Council
  established a two-part test to determine if a duty of care exists in negligence:

  Foreseeability and Proximity: Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the parties such that carelessness on the part of the defendant could cause harm to the plaintiff? 

  
  

  Fair, Just, and Reasonable: If a relationship of proximity exists, is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care? 

  The Caparo Test Explained
  As such the Duty of Care even if there is no existing line of cases applying duty if we can 

  say that:

  1.Reasonable Foreseeability of Damage:

  The harm suffered by the claimant must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant's actions. This principle dates back to the foundational case of Donoghue v Stevenson. 

  2. Proximity:
  There must be a sufficiently close relationship between the parties. This was the critical factor in the Caparo case, as the auditors did not know about Caparo's intention to buy shares based on their report. 

  3. Fair, Just, and Reasonable:
  The court must consider whether it would be fair, just, and reasonable in the circumstances to impose a duty of care on the defendant.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

  •