[Jatlerrr]

I always get confused when thinking about what cases to mention in a tort problem question when it comes to the duty of care.

When answering a problem question, would Donoghne v stevenson or even Ann v Merton ever need to be mentioned? I was wondering because Caparo v Dickman would be used when there is no precedence or statue to reply upon as this is the current law.

[Forum User]

If you are dealing with a novel duty of care then you would apply the Caparo test. If you are dealing with a situation where there is an established duty of care then you can mention the case that established that duty (for example, Hedley Byrne v Heller for negligent misstatement). If you are dealing with a situation where there is absolutely obviously question a duty of care then don't waste time on it (for example, if a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, just say "There is a duty of care").

Don't use Anns v Merton LBC - the decision was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood District Council, and the 'test' which led to absurd results like Junior Books v Veitchi is no longer followed.

[ktwolves]

When answering a problem question, would Donoghne v stevenson or even Ann v Merton ever need to be mentioned? I was wondering because Caparo v Dickman would be used when there is no precedence or statue to reply upon as this is the current law.

The starting point of every tort action will be a discussion of Donaghue v Stevenson no matter how briefly disposed why a duty of care has arisen, the followed up discussion needed is policy reasoning when applying to a particular factual situation whether a duty ought to be imposed. You do need to therefore choose cases with similar facts in order to support your position.