B) Anns test(proximity based upon foreseeability, policy considerations) C) Caparo test {foreseeability(haley v london electricity board),proximity(goodwill v british pregnancy service), whether its fair just and reasonable to impose duty(marc rich v bishop rock marine)} 2)BREACH OF THE DUTY OF CARE
Extend of breach
Standard is that of a reasonable man
Haley v London electricity board
3)CAUSATION i. Factual causation- ‘But for’ test Modifications of the test a) Loss of chance cases- spring v guardian assurance b) Material contribution- Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw c) Material contribution to risk of harm-Mcghee v National coal board ; Fairchild v glenhaven funeral service ltd d) Novus actus interveniens-{by third party(Knightley v johns and others)by claimants acts(Mckew v Holland)by acts of nature/god(Carslogie steamship co. v Royal Norwegian Government) i. Legal Causation
-Direct consequence test ; Re Polemis>>> overruled in Wagon
Mound 1 thus establishment of Reasonable foreseeability test
- Damage should not differ substantially from the one that could be foreseen by D.
- Distinguish btn Doughty v Turner and; Hughes v Lord Advocate
Thin skull rule
- D should take C as he finds him
- Smith v Leech Brain
Crumbling skull
-D is not liable for harm that C could suffer anyway