寻找注意义务的法律基础最初是在具有里程碑意义的多诺休诉史蒂文森案中确立的，[1]是根据“邻人”或“可预见”作为责任原则的要求确立的。在Anns[2]，威尔伯福斯试图恢复一个包罗万象的测试的注意义务，并提出了一个两阶段的测试。第一阶段承认邻近原则的要素，但第二阶段作为一个闸门，必须考虑可能降低关税的政策因素。然而，这被更为谨慎的Harwich的Lord Bridge的“三步测试”所取代，即Caparo[3]测试。本文认为，虽然注意义务仍然是规范过失责任的必要工具，但通过一个相对简单的“检验”确定的一般责任概念已不再适用。对卡帕罗试验的批评将在《巴克莱》、《[4]》以及强调卡帕罗治疗前后矛盾的判例法中被发现。最后，将上院上次对卡帕罗的注意义务的发展与侵权法的效率进行比较。人们会发现，一种公正的纠正方法并不能满足侵权法的所有目标。因此，在严格责任的发展过程中，应采用以成本为基础的效率方法。这进一步强调了卡帕罗不适合定义侵权法下的责任。
澳洲悉尼law assignment代写 法律基础
The legal basis for finding a duty of care was initially established in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson,[1] in accordance with the requirements of ‘neighbour’ or ‘foreseeability’ as principles of liability. Wilberforce, in Anns[2], sought to revive an all-embracing test for a duty of care and set out a two-stage test. The first stage recognises the elements of the neighbourhood principle, yet the second stage acts as a floodgate such that policy factors that could reduce the duty must be considered. This, however, was replaced by a more cautious ‘three-stage test’ of Lord Bridge of Harwich, known as the Caparo[3] test. This essay will argue that whilst the duty of care remains a necessary tool to regulate liability in negligence, a general conception of duty identified by a relatively simple ‘test’ is no longer suitable. Criticisms of the Caparo test will be identified, as explored in Barclays,[4]in addition to case law that highlights inconsistencies in the treatment of Caparo. Finally, the development of the duty of care since the House of Lords last looked into detail at Caparo will be compared with the efficiency of tort law. It will be found that a corrective justice approach does not satisfy all of the objectives of tort law. Therefore, a cost-based efficiency approach is welcomed in the development of strict liability. This further highlights that Caparo is unsuitable to define duties under tort law.
本文摘自网络以段落形式发布，并不是出自最优论文学术团队，请不要直接复制段落内容至您的作品，否则作业100% Turnitin剽窃。最优论文可以代写一切澳洲law assignment作业！请联系客服订购。
