Duty of care (negligence)

The leading authorities to know, and how the doctrine developed over time. A defendant owes the claimant a duty of care where the relationship between them satisfies the established categories or, in a novel case, where harm was reasonably foreseeable, the parties were in a relationship of proximity, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

Leading cases

  1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) [1932] AC 562, House of Lords.

    Established the modern law of negligence and the neighbour principle, the doctrinal starting point for any duty-of-care discussion.

  2. Anns v Merton LBC (1978) [1978] AC 728, House of Lords.

    The high-water mark of the two-stage test; you must know it to understand why later authority pulled back from it.

  3. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) [1990] 2 AC 605, House of Lords.

    Replaced the Anns approach with the three-part test (foreseeability, proximity, fair-just-reasonable) that still anchors novel-duty analysis.

  4. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018) [2018] UKSC 4, Supreme Court.

    Clarified that Caparo is not a universal test; only novel cases reach the three-stage analysis, established categories control the rest.

  • Home
  • About
  • Pricing
  • How it works
  • Question Advisor
  • Foundations
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refunds Policy
  • AI Disclaimer
  • Negligent misstatement (pure economic loss)
  • Consideration
  • Misrepresentation
  • Mens rea, intention and recklessness
  • Judicial review, grounds of review
  • Frustration of contract
  • Promissory estoppel