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, in accordance with the requirements of ‘neighbour’ or ‘foreseeability’ as principles of liability. Wilberforce, in Anns, 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 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,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。