Apply duty of care through precedent and policy
Explain the neighbour principle and Caparo while using established duties and the modern approach to novel situations.
Section 4.1.2 · Duty of care and policy
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.1.2. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Explain the neighbour principle and Caparo factors
- Use Robinson's distinction between established and novel duties
Start with recognised relationships
Donoghue v Stevenson expresses responsibility towards those closely and directly affected who ought reasonably to be in contemplation. It is an important foundation, not proof that every foreseeable loss gives every person a claim. Established relationships such as road users generally supply the starting duty framework.
Caparo identifies foreseeability, proximity and whether imposing the duty is fair, just and reasonable. Robinson explains that Caparo is not a universal fresh test for every negligence claim: established principles ordinarily answer established categories, while novel duties are developed incrementally through analogy and relevant policy. The syllabus's Caparo requirement should be learned alongside that later clarification.
Use policy without substituting sympathy
In novel cases consider the relationship, responsibility undertaken, the risk and the consequences of extending liability. Arguments about indeterminate claims, defensive practices, alternative remedies and coherence can matter; saying ‘it seems fair’ is not a complete legal test.
Positive conduct creating danger differs from an omission to protect someone from a third party. There is no unrestricted duty to rescue every stranger, but assumed responsibility or creation of danger can change the analysis. Public bodies are not universally immune merely because their functions are public. Identify the duty's basis and scope before assessing breach.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does Robinson require a new Caparo assessment for every established duty?
Worked example
A driver carelessly hits a pedestrian. A learner insists that the court must invent a new duty by applying Caparo from scratch. Evaluate.
Show the worked solution
- Road users are an established duty setting.
- Start with the recognised principles.
- Reserve novel-duty policy development for genuinely novel cases.
Answer The established road-user duty is the appropriate starting point. A fresh Caparo balancing exercise is not required for every routine case; breach, causation, damage and defences still need separate proof.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Identify the correct starting duty in the driver example.
Give me a hint
Use the recognised road-user setting.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify driver and pedestrian.
- Apply established duty principles.
- Move to breach and consequences.
The recognised road-user duty provides the starting framework. The answer should then test breach, causation and loss instead of treating routine duty as an entirely novel policy question.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies relationship
- Uses precedent
- Keeps elements separate
Independent: A novel claimant relies only on foreseeable financial harm. What duty questions remain?
Give me a hint
Foreseeability alone is insufficient.
Compare my reasoning
- Examine proximity and assumed responsibility.
- Find relevant precedents and analogy.
- Assess coherent policy limits.
A novel financial-loss duty needs the relevant relationship, authority, responsibility and policy analysis. Foreseeable harm alone does not establish a duty to every affected person.
Look for these in your work
- Uses relationship
- Uses analogy
- Uses policy
Application: Compare actively creating a danger with merely failing to prevent a stranger's independent act.
Give me a hint
Acts and omissions can use different duty principles.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify who creates the risk.
- Check assumed responsibility or another recognised basis.
- Avoid a universal rescue duty.
Positive creation of danger may fall within ordinary negligence principles. A failure to protect against another's act generally needs a recognised additional basis, such as assumed responsibility; moral concern alone does not create an unrestricted legal rescue obligation.
Look for these in your work
- Distinguishes acts
- Checks recognised basis
- Avoids universal duty
Common mistakes
- Using Caparo mechanically in every case
- Making foreseeability the whole test
- Assuming public-body immunity
What can you explain now?
Does Robinson require a new Caparo assessment for every established duty?
Compare with the explanation
No
Established duties normally follow established principles; novel extension requires further analysis.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does Robinson require a new Caparo assessment for every established duty?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.