This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Need to add
editIn what jurisdiction did this apply (before it was overruled in the cited case)?
===================================================================
editAnns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728
http://www.legalabbrevs.cardiff.ac.uk/searchabbreviation/
cardiff says: England & Wales
Anns suggested a two stage test in determining whether a duty of care was owed:
(1) If the defendant knew or ought to have know that its conduct might cause harm to the plaintiff, and
(2) If there is no policy reason for negating that duty, then there is a duty.
This approach can also be contrasted with the three-stage test used in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
(1) The damage was reasonably foreseeable.
(2) A relationship of “proximity” existed
(3) In the circumstances, it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.