Negligence: Duty of Care

The tort of negligence is the most important and widely litigated tort in the English legal system. To succeed in a negligence claim, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the claimant's damage; and (4) the damage was not too remote. This lesson focuses on the first of these elements — the duty of care — and traces its development from the foundational case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] through to the modern three-part test established in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990].

---

The Concept of Duty of Care

A duty of care is a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to another person. Not everyone owes a duty of care to everyone else in all circumstances. The law limits the situations in which a duty of care will be recognised, balancing the interests of claimants in receiving compensation against the need to avoid imposing excessive liability on defendants.

The key question is: in what circumstances will the law recognise that one person owes a duty of care to another?

Key Definition: A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed by the law of negligence requiring a person to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable harm to others who may be affected by their acts or omissions.

---

The Neighbour Principle: Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

The modern law of negligence begins with the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].

Facts

Mrs Donoghue visited a cafe in Paisley, Scotland. Her friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by Stevenson. After drinking some of the ginger beer, Mrs Donoghue poured out the rest and discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. She claimed to have suffered gastroenteritis and nervous shock as a result.

Mrs Donoghue could not sue in contract because she had not purchased the drink herself — her friend had. She therefore sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, in the tort of negligence.

The Legal Issue

The question before the House of Lords was: did a manufacturer of products owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, with whom there was no contractual relationship?

The Decision

The House of Lords held, by a majority of 3–2, that the manufacturer did owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. The key speech was delivered by Lord Atkin, who formulated the famous neighbour principle:

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

Significance

Donoghue v Stevenson established two crucial principles:

1. A general duty of care exists in the law of negligence — it is not limited to specific categories of relationship
2. Foreseeability of harm is the key criterion — if it is reasonably foreseeable that your conduct could cause harm to another person, you may owe them a duty of care

Aspect	Detail
Case	Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Court	House of Lords
Key judge	Lord Atkin
Principle	The neighbour principle — duty of care owed to persons foreseeably affected by your acts or omissions
Impact	Established negligence as an independent tort with a general principle, not just a collection of specific duties

---

The Expansion and Retreat of Duty of Care

Following Donoghue v Stevenson, the courts gradually expanded the scope of the duty of care. This process reached its high point with Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978], where Lord Wilberforce formulated a two-stage test:

1. Stage 1: Is there a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood between the parties, based on foreseeability, such that the defendant ought reasonably to have the claimant in contemplation?
2. Stage 2: If so, are there any policy considerations that should negative, reduce, or limit the scope of the duty?

The Anns test was criticised for being too broad. It made it too easy to establish a duty of care and led to an expansion of liability that concerned the judiciary. By the late 1980s, there was a judicial retreat from the Anns approach.

---

The Caparo Three-Part Test: Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

The modern test for establishing a duty of care was laid down by the House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990].

Facts

Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity plc, relying on an audit report prepared by the defendants (Dickman, a firm of auditors). The audit showed a profit of £1.3 million, but the true position was a loss of £465,000. Caparo sued the auditors in negligence, claiming that they had relied on the negligent audit report in making their investment decision.

The Decision

The House of Lords held that the auditors did not owe a duty of care to Caparo as a potential investor. The purpose of a statutory audit was to enable existing shareholders to exercise informed control over the company, not to provide information for potential investors making investment decisions.

The Three-Part Test

Lord Bridge formulated the Caparo three-part test for establishing a duty of care:

Element	Meaning	Application in Caparo
1. Foreseeability	Was the harm to the claimant reasonably foreseeable?	It was foreseeable that someone might rely on the audit report
2. Proximity	Was there a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and the defendant?	There was insufficient proximity — Caparo were not identified as specific users of the report
3. Fair, just, and reasonable	Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances?	It would not be fair, just, and reasonable — auditors would face indeterminate liability to an indeterminate class

All three elements must be satisfied for a duty of care to be established.

flowchart TD
    A["Does D owe C a<br/>duty of care?"] --> B{"1. Was the harm<br/>FORESEEABLE?"}
    B -- No --> Z["No duty of care"]
    B -- Yes --> C{"2. Was there<br/>PROXIMITY between<br/>C and D?"}
    C -- No --> Z
    C -- Yes --> D{"3. Is it FAIR, JUST,<br/>and REASONABLE to<br/>impose a duty?"}
    D -- No --> Z
    D -- Yes --> E["Duty of care<br/>ESTABLISHED"]

    style A fill:#1a5276,color:#fff
    style E fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
    style Z fill:#c0392b,color:#fff

---

Examining Each Element of the Caparo Test

1. Foreseeability

The first element requires the court to ask whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen that their conduct could cause harm to the claimant or to a class of persons that includes the claimant.

Foreseeability is generally the easiest element to satisfy. If it is reasonably foreseeable that careless driving could injure other road users, or that a negligently manufactured product could harm consumers, the foreseeability element is met.

Key cases:

• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] — It was foreseeable that a contaminated product could harm the consumer
• Bourhill v Young [1943] — A pregnant woman who heard a motorcycle accident and later saw blood on the road suffered nervous shock and a miscarriage. The House of Lords held that injury to the claimant was not foreseeable — she was not within the range of foreseeable harm

2. Proximity

Proximity is about the closeness of the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. This is not merely physical closeness but encompasses the nature of the relationship — whether there is a direct connection that makes it appropriate to impose a duty.