Three different tests have been devised to establish if there is a duty of care, has it been breached and was it foreseeable. With the first being the Neighbour test this was the first and was introduced by Lord Atkins, the other tests were derived from this test. Lord Atkins established e-lawresources (n,d) ‘you are to love your neighbour’ ‘take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee’. He then went on to explain that your Neighbour e-lawresources (n,d) is ‘persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act’.
Because the Neighbour test was too broad the Anns test was established by Lord Wilberforce, but just for manufacturing. His test included two stages: e-lawresources (n,d)
’ 1. Examine whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable and there existed a relationship of proximity. If so a prima facie duty of care arises.
2. The defendant may put forward policy considerations to negate liability.’
However, they still thought this was too broad and so the Caparo test was brought in. Under this test it has to be established; e-lawresources (n,d)
‘1. That harm was reasonably foreseeable
2. That there was a relationship of proximity
3. That it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care’
All of these tests have shown that it has to be foreseeable, there must be a proximity and it must be fair to expect a duty of care.
An example of this would be the major crash on M5 in 2011. In which 34 cars were involved in a crash caused by a mixture of fog and smoke, which killed 7 and injured 51. A car crash in these circumstances is foreseeable however, having a firework display close to the road and adding to the fog was not.
Please have your views or opinion put forth regarding what extent does damage caused by a breach of duty have to be foreseeable?