Abstract:
Two recent cases concerning police negligence present conflicting interpretations of the landmark case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the English Court of Appeal held that Caparo is authority for a three-stage test of duty of care that should be applied in all cases (established and novel). In contrast, in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales, the Supreme Court maintained that previous duty situations should be the focus and that the three-stage Caparo ‘test’ is only applicable in novel cases. This article analyses these cases in order to fulfil two purposes. The first is to shed light on when the police will owe a duty of care; the second (which turns on the first) is to reappraise the decision of Caparo. It is argued that unless that case (and, by extension, the approach for determining duty of care questions) is understood correctly, the law of negligence will continue to be in an unacceptable state of uncertainty.
Purshouse, Craig, Arrested Development: Police Negligence and the Caparo ‘Test’ for Duty of Care (January 1, 2016). (2016) 23 Torts Law Journal 1.
First posted 2016-08-25 06:22:58
Leave a Reply