When is the Caparo/Donoghue v. Stevenson test used ?

Watch
Ketchuplover
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
When is the Caparo/Donoghue v. Stevenson test used and what is the difference between them? Is the Caparo test used more often on economic loss whereas Donoghue on physical harm? What is the main difference that sets them apart?
0
reply
TSR Learn Together
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Hi there,

While you're waiting for an answer, did you know we have 300,000 study resources that could answer your question in TSR's Learn together section?

We have everything from Teacher Marked Essays to Mindmaps and Quizzes to help you with your work. Take a look around.

If you're stuck on how to get started, try creating some resources. It's free to do and can help breakdown tough topics into manageable chunks. Get creating now.

Thanks!

Not sure what all of this is about? Head here to find out more.
0
reply
oliverclayson
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Ketchuplover)
When is the Caparo/Donoghue v. Stevenson test used and what is the difference between them? Is the Caparo test used more often on economic loss whereas Donoghue on physical harm? What is the main difference that sets them apart?
Donoghue v Stevenson is a great way to introduce an answer to a question on negligence, it established the 'neighbour principle' in negligence (owing your neighbour a duty of care not to injure them emotionally/physically/directly financially)

Caparo Industries v Dickinson Plc sets out the basic principles for a case in negligence to be establised (use these as the main points in your answer):
1) D owes V a duty of care
2) D broke that duty
3) D breaking that duty directly caused V's injury (be careful to look at acts and omissions, did D have a duty to act?)
4) D and V had a proximate relationship (this is used to establish the duty, and this is where Caparo failed in their claim)
5) The damages are not too remote (see Spartan Steel v Martin for direct economic injury flowing from the breach)

elawresources also provides a good explanation in their section on tort > negligence
0
reply
abbythefab
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Before the Caparo Test, the Donoghue v Stevenson test (neighbourhood principle) per Lord Atkin was used to establish negligence.

Then came the test in Anns v Merton which was overruled by Murphy v Brentwood. As of today, the test used to establish negligence is Carparo Industries v Dickman according to the 3 steps;

1. Reasonable foreseeability of harm between C and D
2. Proximity of relationship between C and D
3. It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability according to set policy reasons.

For a claim in Economic loss, it is allowed for consequential but not pure economic loss unless it was made due to a negligent misstatement.

However, for there to be a successful consequential economic loss claim, the 3 elements laid down in the Caparo test must be satisfied on top of the test set in Spartan Steels v Martin.

Hope this helps!
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (147)
14.54%
I'm not sure (43)
4.25%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (303)
29.97%
I have already dropped out (26)
2.57%
I'm not a current university student (492)
48.66%

Watched Threads

View All