The TSR Community Awards 2025 are now live >>

Tort - Caparo Test

In tort i am a bit confused on this problem question we have - basically a woman leaves her keys in a car, and a 16 yr old robs car and runs lad over on a pedestrian crossing when man was on green - also boys sister was injured because she didnt put her seat belt on (she was 8 years old).

It is obvious that the joyrider is liable for injuries to lad and sister (because he owes her a duty of care)

it is just the woman who left her keys in the car- is she liable....i used the caparo test but i dont know i just cant come to conclusion if she is liable or not is there a chain of causation leading from her? or is she not going to be liable?? Any one got any words of wisdom???

Reply 1

DaveLawStuuuudent06

In terms of the caparo criteria the first thing that came to my mind is whether a court would hold it to be fair, just and reasonable to impose this duty of care on the woman? Debatable i'd say but a good point to look at. I'd argue that it wouldn't be fair.

In considering the womans liability you have to ask was there a duty of care? What was this duty? A duty to ensure others don't have access to her vehicle which could be used and injure a member of the public perhaps? In my opinion it would be unlikely that this duty would be held to exist. You then have the fact that another person steals the car. Foreseeable as it is, it will most certainly be held as an novus actus interveniens of a third party therefore breaking any chain of causation.

Anyway just my thoughts so don't quote me :smile:

Reply 2

kyle_LLB

A useful case:

If you have a look at the case Topp v London Country Bus (South West) Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 976

A Bus was left unattended with the keys in the ignition. Someone stole the bus and ran someone over. The Bus company was held not to be liable for the voluntary acts of a third party (over whom they have no control).

However if she had voluntarily given the keys to a person who was plainly intoxicated, she may be liable

Reply 3

Fireman John

I'm struggling a little with the "duty of care" thing too... I've got two conflicting things in my head - I've read somewhere (a case and I can't recall which one - it might be the Nicholas H - or it MIGHT be Osman) which says that the 3-stage test should be applied EVERY TIME.. but then I read material that says where the duty question has alreayd been established in existing cases there is no need to apply the caparo test... In fact, I think it was Osman such that the ECtHR pretty much said that blanket immunity was a breach of Art 6... maybe that means you apply the Caparo ONLY when you have a situation where established law says there is NO duty?

Additionally, I've read a case which said that the caparo test is not applicable to physical harm cases... the caparo test is intended to deal with economic loss... case slips my mind without diggin out my notes - but on judge was scathing at the suggestion that F,J & R criteria were being improted into a physical harm scenario where the neighbor test and incremental approach still holds true (in fact, I think I got that from Weir's text)

I find myself really struglling with tort because I just can't get my head around the Duty of Care concept and when the test is applied/when it isn't applied!?

Reply 4

sazina1234

HI, how does the case of OSMAN and the case of HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE apply to the 3rd stage of CAPARO. Fair, just and reasonable stage three?

Reply 5

Ad-Alta

In Hill it was a policy issue over whether members of the police should be allowed to hold the police accountable for something which was out of their control (in that case, which individual would be the next victim of the Yorkshire Ripper; it turned out to be the claimant's daughter). Obviously, they could not be, as well as it potentially being a 'floodgates' situation.

Reply 6

Danielle78

could you please give me a description ov the floodgates principle please

Reply 7

I am the law

floodgates: if one claim is now successful that beforehand could not have been due to stances taken by the courts, EVERYONE and their kitchen sinks will make a claim who has suffered under similar circumstances and overwhelm the legal system.

Reply 8

cliffg

I'm sorry if I sound pedantic here and I don't mean to be awkward - just trying to help the OP - be very careful when answering a law essay, with the terms you use. You said that the 16 year old "robs" the car. Did you really mean steals it ? or Takes it and Drives it Away ? If you really meant robbery then where was the force or threat of it ? Knocks down someone on a "Pedestrian" crossing when the man was green. Did you really mean "Pelican" crossing - "pedestrian crossings" are black and white zebras with no lights. The "Joyrider" - you can't refer to someone as a "robber" and a couple of sentences later turn them into a joyrider. How do you know what his intention was when he took that vehicle ? I don't mean to sound harsh, and I know I'm not addressing the tort question, but you'll do better if get those terms right - don't interchange "robs" for "steals" etc., I know it's colloquial but you need be precise with your language now. Good luck.