Abstract
This paper is an historical analysis, tracing the progress of the concept of the duty of care, and analysing how its function has changed from pre-1932 ["Donoghue v Stevenson"], to present. It provides an insightful discussion into the relationship between the duty of care and the rule of privity of contract and also discusses how the courts use this concept to secure results which they think are circumstance.

From the Paper
"And so, post Anns v Murphy, we see the Courts becoming more open about the application of policy in determining the presence of a Duty of Care*; In Hill, no duty was held to exist primarily because of the public policy consideration in relation to defensive policing [although there was also the issue of remoteness]. In CAPARO INDUSTRIES PLC v DICKMAN [1990], this general overtness was manifested by a test that to impose a duty would be 'fair, just and reasonable' in the circumstances. In MARK RICH & CO AG v BISHOP ROCK MARINE LTD, 'THE NICHOLAS H' [1995], the House of Lords, in finding that a marine survey society should not owe a duty of care to a shipowner, upheld a unanimous Court of Appeal decision that the tripartite test for establishing a duty of care promulgated in CAPARO was now to be of universal application."

Tags:anns, caparo, concept, contract, donoghue, function, law, mark, merton, rich, stevenson, tort