[luap]

In [I]Carparo Ind plc[I]v.[I]Dickman and Others (1990)[I] Lord brige of Harwich said:

'It is never sufficient to ask simply whther A owes B a duty of care. It is always necessary to determine the scope of the duty by reference to the kind of damage from which A must take care to save B harmless'

Identify the scope of the duty established in tort for contractors to thier employers in relation to negligently constructed building.

I have to use construction and non construction cases for this in essay style, should I undertake the basic's, i.e. state legal principals, definitions, main body, and then sum up the contractors duty to employers at the end?

Advice welcomed.

[ktwolves]

FINDING DUTY OF CARE

You are asked to explain the decisions in Caparo v Dickman, despite satisfying the general principles established by Donaghue(Identify the scope of the duty established in tort), the court has to consider on the facts whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care ( in relation to negligently constructed building)

[patrickinator]

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1949171

[jjarvis]

(Original post by ktwolves)
FINDING DUTY OF CARE

You are asked to explain the decisions in Caparo v Dickman, despite satisfying the general principles established by Donaghue(Identify the scope of the duty established in tort), the court has to consider on the facts whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care ( in relation to negligently constructed building)

This isn't actually what the question quoted asks. The question asks specifically about the scope of the duties contractors owe to their employers. The question does not ask for a general excursus on Caparo v Dickman, let alone a discussion of Donohue v Stevenson.

[ktwolves]

This is the issue:
'It is never sufficient to ask simply whther A owes B a duty of care.

not

specifically about the scope of the duties contractors owe to their employers

Limit of your essay " reference to the kind of damage from which A (contractors) must take care to save B (employer)harmless'

to decide if a duty should be imposed (my words)

[jjarvis]

(Original post by ktwolves)
This is the issue:
'It is never sufficient to ask simply whther A owes B a duty of care.

not

specifically about the scope of the duties contractors owe to their employers

Limit of your essay " reference to the kind of damage from which A (contractors) must take care to save B (employer)harmless'

to decide if a duty should be imposed (my words)

I'm sorry, but the random spacing and indiscriminate use of bold renders this post incoherent. The question isn't particularly well-written, but your posts don't make any sense.

[luap]

My life, just what I thought. ASK A QUESTION GET AN ARGUMENT!?

The question is asking what duty is owed and when, it is purely applicable to the question, that being contractor/employers. The 3 fold test in Carparo v. Dickman is the very basis.

I know the answer, I was simply testing the waters, been some time since i was on this board, unfortunately same old guff.

Much much later.

[ktwolves]

(Original post by luap)
My life, just what I thought. ASK A QUESTION GET AN ARGUMENT!?

The question is asking what duty is owed and when, it is purely applicable to the question, that being contractor/employers. The 3 fold test in Carparo v. Dickman is the very basis.

I know the answer, I was simply testing the waters, been some time since i was on this board, unfortunately same old guff.

Much much later.

As you wish, it is always necessary to analyse the question and answer the question asked and not the question you wish to answer. IMHO, the quote must be taken seriously. - 'It is never sufficient to ask simply whther A owes B a duty of care." .

A duty arises out of contract is a given before Caparo but.
You are asked to "Identify the scope of the duty with reference to the kind of damages caused " in relation to negligently constructed building. Negligence is presumed in this question, but whether a duty ought to be imposed as a policy matter to be debated in relation to the type of damages caused or building defects in particular.

OUT OF HERE.
BYE.