In general yes, but don't waste words where it is completely obvious from the facts that these are satifsfied.
For example, if Jack drives his car while high on drugs and crashes into Jill, it is clear that there is a duty of care owed by Jack to other road users, and that it has been breached. If Jill breaks her leg as a result, the damage has obviously been caused by Jack and is not too remote.
You would not apply the Caparo test or need to go over the case law related to remoteness for basic facts such as these. The Caparo test is only needed for a 'novel' duty of care.