Donoghue v Stevenson - must take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

Caparo Industries v Dickman: 1. harm/loss must be reasonably foreseeable 2. must be proximity between claimant & defendant 3. must be 'fair, just & reasonable' to impose a duty of care (restricted in claims against public bodies, for psychiatric injury & for economic loss)

Standard of care - defendant must act with the degree of care & skill expected from a reasonable person

Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets Ltd: 1. what functions had been entrusted by the employer to the employee 2. was there a sufficient connection between the employees wrongful conduct & the position in which they were employed

Nettleship v Weston

1. Professionals - standard of care that a reasonably competent person in that profession would show 2. Childen - lower standard of care 3. Where ability impaired by condition of which unaware - standard adjusted to reflect impairment

1. likelihood of risk occuring 2. likely scale of potential harm 3. reasonableness of taking precautions 4. benefit of defendants risk taking conduct, e.g. emergency situation

1. factual causation 2. legal causation

'but for' test - 'but for' the defendants act/omission, would the claimant have suffered the harm

1. an unforeseeable act of a third party 2. an unreasonable/unforeseeable act of the claimant 3. an act of God (intervening natural event)

The Wagon Mound - was the type of loss or damage reasonably foreseeable

where a claimants financial loss is not connected to his physical injury or damage to his property, traditionally not recoverable - Spartan Stell v Martin

Tort of deceit

Hedley Byrne v Heller: 1. must be a special relationship of trust & confidence between claimant & defendant 2. the party preparing the advice, must have voluntarily assumed the risk 3. the claimant must actually rely upon the advice to his/her detriment 4. the claimants reliance must have been reasonable

1. the defendant must know that the statement would be communicated to the claimant 2. the advice must have been given specifically in connection with an identifiable transaction(s) 3. the defendant must reasonably anticipate that the claimant was likely to rely on the statement, without seeking further independent advice