判决理由
The Caparo test is not a universal test to be applied in every case. Where an established duty of care exists (e.g., the police owe a duty not to cause foreseeable physical injury to bystanders), the court should apply established principles rather than the Caparo test.
事实
Police officers attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a busy high street. During the struggle, they knocked over Mrs Robinson, a 76-year-old woman, causing her injuries. She sued the police.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court held the police owed Mrs Robinson a duty of care. This was not a case of the police failing to protect her from harm caused by a third party (where no duty generally arises); it was a case of the police themselves causing her harm through their positive actions. The ordinary principles of negligence applied.
关键引述
"It is normally only in a novel type of case, where established principles do not provide an answer, that the courts need to go beyond those principles in order to decide whether a duty of care should be recognised."
— Lord Reed
后续处理
Important clarification of when the Caparo test applies, confirming that established categories of duty should not be revisited through Caparo.