# Duty of care in negligence: when the law imposes a duty

> **Key takeaway:** Established category → apply it (Robinson). Novel case → Caparo: foreseeability + proximity + fair/just/reasonable. Foundations: Donoghue. Pure economic loss / misstatement: often assumption of responsibility (Hedley Byrne). Omissions and third-party harm: generally no duty without special features.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/duty-of-care-negligence
- **Keywords:** duty of care, negligence, Caparo, Robinson, Donoghue v Stevenson, proximity, pure economic loss, Hedley Byrne

## What is this about?

Negligence liability requires a duty of care, breach, causation, and damage not excluded by remoteness or defence. Modern English law approaches novel duty questions through the Caparo framework and, for established categories, through incremental analogy rather than free-standing policy invention. Personal injury from positive acts in established settings is usually straightforward; pure economic loss, omissions, public-authority liability, and psychiatric harm remain the high-risk analytical zones.

## What is the core rule?

A duty of care exists where the law recognises an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing the relevant kind of damage to the claimant. In novel cases, courts typically ask whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman). Where an established duty category already covers the situation, the court applies that category rather than re-running Caparo from scratch (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire).

## What are the elements or test?

1. What kind of damage is claimed (personal injury, property damage, pure economic loss, psychiatric injury)?
2. Is there an established duty category (e.g. road users, employer/employee, manufacturer/consumer for dangerous products in tort) that applies by analogy?
3. If novel: (1) foreseeability of harm of the relevant kind; (2) proximity between claimant and defendant; (3) fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Caparo)
4. Special regimes: omissions and third-party wrongdoing generally need assumption of responsibility, control, or another recognised exception; pure economic loss often turns on assumption of responsibility (Hedley Byrne / extended principles)

## Which authorities matter?

- **Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562** — Foundational neighbour principle and manufacturer liability for latent defects causing personal injury.
- **Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605** — Three-stage framework for novel duty questions: foreseeability, proximity, and fair/just/reasonable.
- **Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] AC 736** — Reaffirms incremental, category-based reasoning; Caparo is not a universal triple test applied afresh to every routine case.
- **Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465** — Assumption of responsibility as a route to duty for negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss (subject to disclaimers and later refinements).

## How does this apply in practice?

This note addresses the duty stage only. Breach (standard of care), factual and legal causation, remoteness (The Wagon Mound), contributory negligence, and volenti are outside scope. Public-authority and human-rights concurrent claims need separate analysis. Psychiatric injury has its own control mechanisms (primary/secondary victims) not fully developed here.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Running Caparo as a free-standing policy veto in a routine established-category case (contrary to Robinson)
- Assuming foreseeability alone creates a duty
- Treating pure economic loss like personal injury without an assumption-of-responsibility or special-relationship analysis
- Collapsing duty and breach into a single 'was it fair?' question

## When would a practitioner use this?

First filter when assessing a potential negligence claim or defence: is there a recognised duty for this defendant, this claimant, and this type of loss?

## Quick reference

Established category → apply it (Robinson). Novel case → Caparo: foreseeability + proximity + fair/just/reasonable. Foundations: Donoghue. Pure economic loss / misstatement: often assumption of responsibility (Hedley Byrne). Omissions and third-party harm: generally no duty without special features.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*