... and unjust to hold someone responsible for something that was unexpected, or of a freak nature. In recent years the duty of care has been furthered by the courts in Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990). Which established the criterion that the claimant must be 'proximate' to the act that caused damage, Boardman v. Sanderson (1964), the act must also be 'foreseeable', and the pursuance of the case must be "just and reasonable." Would it be considered unjust or unreasonable for the courts to impose a duty of care Mulcahy v. Ministry of Defence (1996). 2. Secondly it must also be proved that there was a breach of the duty of care. The concept of breach of duty was originally defined in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), this established that the breach of duty of care is based upon the actions of a "reasonable man." This means that the defendant ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now