판결 이유
Lord Wilberforce proposed a two-stage test for duty of care: (1) is there sufficient proximity such that carelessness may cause damage? (2) are there policy considerations to negate or limit the duty? This expansive test was later overruled by Murphy v Brentwood.
사실관계
A block of flats was built on inadequate foundations. The local authority's building inspectors had either not inspected the foundations or had approved defective work. The flats later developed structural damage due to the inadequate foundations. The leaseholders sued the council.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held the council owed a duty of care. Lord Wilberforce's two-stage test significantly expanded the scope of negligence liability, suggesting a duty of care arose whenever there was sufficient proximity unless policy reasons dictated otherwise.
주요 인용문
"The position has now been reached that in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of care has been held to exist."
— Lord Wilberforce
후속 처리
Overruled by Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] on the recoverability of pure economic loss and the scope of local authority liability. The Caparo three-stage test replaced the Anns two-stage test.