When tackling the duty of care questions in your SQE1 tort negligence exam, you’ll need to master the Caparo test with precision. You’re not solely reciting elements—you’re methodically analyzing whether a duty exists through reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and fairness criteria. The examiners expect you to distinguish between established duties and novel situations, supporting your arguments with relevant case law. Let’s explore how you can steer through these nuanced considerations to maximize your marks.
The Caparo Test: Breaking Down the Three-Part Framework
When tackling the Caparo test, you’re fundamentally working with a three-part framework that’s become the cornerstone of establishing duty of care in negligence cases.
You’ll need to methodically evaluate each element: reasonable foreseeability of harm, proximity between parties, and whether it’s fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
Remember that foreseeability is assessed objectively—would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position predict potential harm?
When assessing foreseeability, ask: would a reasonable person standing in the defendant’s shoes anticipate the potential harm?
Proximity goes beyond physical closeness to include relationships where responsibility is assumed or control exercised.
The final element allows courts to reflect on broader societal impacts and policy concerns.
While the framework seems straightforward, you should appreciate its limitations.
Critics note its vagueness, particularly regarding proximity and fairness definitions.
Courts often prefer incremental reasoning by analogy rather than strictly applying all three elements in established categories of duty.
The Caparo test significantly reformed negligence law by replacing the earlier two-stage Anns test that had been criticized for creating inconsistent judicial decisions.
Established Duties vs. Novel Situations: Key Distinctions
Unlike the more predictable territory of established duties, novel situations in duty of care analysis require you to steer through uncharted legal waters.
When dealing with established duties, you’ll rely on precedent—duties owed by professionals, common carriers, or landowners—where courts apply consistent rules emphasizing legal certainty.
In contrast, novel duties demand a different approach. You’ll need to analyze foreseeability, proximity, and policy considerations carefully. Courts adopt a cautious stance here, wary of opening floodgates of litigation. Judges have historically assumed this gatekeeping role due to their ability to recognize recurring case patterns.
For exam success, distinguish between these scenarios promptly. With established duties, identify the relationship and cite relevant precedent.
For novel situations, methodically apply the appropriate tests, considering vulnerability of claimants and potential indeterminate liability implications. Remember to apply the Caparo test accurately to establish the existence of duty, breach, and causation in negligence claims.
Omissions and Positive Action: When Failing to Act Creates Liability
Despite the general presumption against liability, omissions represent a critical aspect of duty of care analysis that you’ll need to master for exam success.
Remember that while doing nothing typically creates no liability, three key exceptions exist that you’ll want to identify in any scenario.
First, look for assumption of responsibility—when someone voluntarily undertakes to help and another reasonably relies on this.
Second, identify special relationships or control situations, such as instructor-pupil dynamics.
Third, watch for cases where the defendant created or adopted the risk, thereby acquiring an affirmative duty. What constitutes passive conduct versus actively adopting risk can significantly influence liability outcomes.
In novel situations, always apply the Caparo test methodically: was harm foreseeable?
Is there sufficient proximity?
Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty?
The neighbor principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson provides the foundational approach for determining when a duty of care exists in negligence cases.
Economic Loss and Pure Psychiatric Harm: Special Considerations
Moving from the domain of omissions, you’ll now face two particularly challenging areas that often appear on tort law exams: economic loss and psychiatric harm.
When tackling pure economic loss questions, remember the starting point: such losses aren’t generally recoverable in negligence. You’ll need to identify whether an exception applies—like a special relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, or circumstances meeting the Caparo test. Economic loss resulting from defective products is typically not recoverable in negligence, with plaintiffs needing to pursue contractual remedies instead.
Consider whether the case involves negligent misstatement (Hedley Byrne) or is analogous to a contractual obligation.
Assessing professional advice cases through their contractual character offers crucial insight into establishing duty and recovering economic losses.
For pure psychiatric harm, distinguish between primary victims (directly endangered) and secondary victims (who must satisfy the Alcock criteria).
Secondary victims need to prove a close tie of love and affection, proximity to the event, and direct perception of it.
Watch for policy considerations in both areas—courts are wary of floodgates and indeterminate liability.
Applying Duty of Care Analysis to SQE1 Scenario Questions
When approaching SQE1 scenario questions, you’ll need a systematic framework for analyzing duty of care issues that can make the difference between passing and failing your exam.
Start by identifying both parties and immediately assess whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable from the defendant’s conduct.
Next, evaluate the proximity between parties—consider their relationship, physical closeness, or dependence.
Then determine if imposing a duty is fair, just, and reasonable, weighing public policy implications carefully.
Check if the scenario falls within established categories where duty is automatically recognized (like employer-employee relationships or occupiers’ liability).
The landmark case Caparo v Dickman established the three-part test that forms the foundation for modern duty of care analysis.
Remember to support your analysis with relevant case precedents. This methodical approach demonstrates to examiners that you can apply legal principles logically to novel fact patterns.
Final Thoughts
You’ll master the SQE1 Tort Negligence exam by methodically applying the Caparo test to each scenario you encounter. Consider how the Robinson v. Chief Constable case demonstrates that proximity and fairness can override foreseeability. Remember, it’s more than knowing cases but understanding when and how to apply them. Approach each question systematically, and you’ll confidently traverse duty of care analysis in even the most complex scenarios.