A stricter test of foreseeability
In Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990), the House of Lords set out a three-stage test for the duty of care in negligence looking at, first, the relationship between the injured and the wrongdoer (usually referred to as proximity); second, how foreseeable was the event that caused injury; and third, the issue of fairness and reasonableness.
In this article we look at the issue of foreseeability and how case law suggests the concept is approached in relation to the Provision and Use of Worksite Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) and in particular the decision in Hide v Steeplechase Company Ltd (2013)…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from The Lawyer
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why