Pallavi Agarwal, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
Caparo Industries plc vs Dickman is one of the most important cases studied in tort law. This is because a three-leg test was identified in its course, that is, the Capapro test. This test was widely used for the determination of the existence ‘duty of care’ in negligence lawsuits. The three stages of this test are (1) whether as a result of the defendants act the damage was reasonable foreseeable, (2) whether there was adequate proximity between the parties and (3) whether it is just fair or reasonable to hold the defendant liable. Over the years, this ‘test’ has been used in a myriad of cases by the courts to determine the existence of duty of care.1 In this paper, I will focus on the third stage of the test and highlight the problems that come with it. I will also emphasize on the changes that this test could use in order to make it function in a more credible and efficient manner. The third test of Caparo has created a lot of confusion, unpredictability and inconsistency over the years. This is because it creates a lot of ambiguity and contradictory reasoning with the reliance of policy considerations to endorse the idea of ‘distributive justice’.2 It refuses duty that would ordinarily exist due to greater policy concerns. This paper attempts to analyze the third leg of Caparo- ‘justice, fair and reasonable’ using case laws to show how it is problematic and suggests improvement in its framework.
Comments