Abstract

This article discusses a research project which aimed to analyse the relationship between judicial pronouncements over the likely effects upon a defendant of the imposition of a duty of care in negligence, and any effects in practice. Empirical research was carried out to ascertain the effect upon the fire service of the Court of Appeal decision in Capital and Counties and Digital Equipment v Hampshire County Council[1997] QB 1004. This decision imposed a duty of care upon fire services to avoid making mistakes whilst fighting fires which might cause the fire to become more serious. The findings of the project are drawn upon to make observations regarding how the courts presently apply the third limb of the three stage test of duty of care derived from Caparo v Dickman, which asks whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.