Does the defendant owe the claimant a DUTY OF CARE in the circumstances of the case? The facts are analogous with a past precedent; or A past precedent is broad enough to be developed to apply to the facts; or The Caparo v Dickman 3 part test applies: Harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's act or omission There is legal proximity between the parties It is fair just and reasonable for a duty to be imposed NO YES 7 Did the defendant BREACH the duty? The defendant did not act as a reasonable man and fell below the standard of care appropriate to the particular duty owed; Or The defendant was a professional that failed to behave in a way that a reasonable competent professional would . The risk of damage was foreseeable . The likelihood of the risk was great · Taking practicable precautions could have avoided harm (only if appropriate to the circumstances of the case) . The claimant was likely to suffer greater harm (thin skull rule) . The usefulness of the D's behaviour did not justify the risk . The defendant failed to follow a safe common practice NO > And (in all cases) THE DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE Y?S Did the defendant's breach of duty CAUSE the claimant's DAMAGE? The breach was the factual cause of the damage . The damage would not have occurred but for the D's breach of duty; or " If there was more than one cause then the defendant's breach was the substantial cause, or NO " The breach of duty materially increased the risk that damage would occur . There was no break in the chain of causation Was the damage not too remote a consequence of D's breach? . The damage was a foreseeable consequence of the D's breach of duty The damage was of a type that was reasonably foreseeable YES THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE Necessary stages in establishing a claim in negligence