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.