Reynolds V Clarke (1833)

Reynolds v Clarke (1726)2 Ld Raym 1399, Fortescue ruled that the difference would surmount to whether the consequence was immediate or occurred later, for which an action would otherwise not be brought. The rigidness in the distinction between trespass and case proved a problem. The solution lay in allowing the plaintiff to ‘waive’ the trespass and sue instead in case.in Williams v. Holland (1833)2 LJCP (NS) 190, the court of common pleas decided that this would be allowed if the plaintiff’s injury was occasioned by the ‘carelessness and negligence’ of the defendant, regardless of whether or not the act was immediate, so long as the act was unwillful. Thus one could bring an act whether the defendant produced immediate or consequential damage.

Caparo industries plc v Dickman (1990) a threefold test was established. The case was that caparo industries brought an action against auditor of flexibility plc who had claimed that the presence tax income was 1.3 million when they had in fact made a loss. They claimed the auditors were negligent. It was held that since the accontants had no prior knowledge of the existence of purchase of shades by caparo industries then there was no duty of care was owed because the auditors were unaware of Caparo Industries’ existence or the purpose of the accounts used by them. Therefore there was no proximity.

Lord bridge stated that what emerged was that in addition to the existing rule of foreseeability, for duty of care to arise there should exist between whom the duty is owed and the party owing the duty proximity and the situation one in which the court considers just, fair and

Some even call for its replacement with a no-fault based system which would require a rewriting of of the law of torts, most especially negligence.

Fault principle is a fact that is hard to establish and depends on the factors that influence a case at the time. As the workings of the law evolve to one that cites a no-liability system as the best one for trying tort cases especially when strict liability became necessary when as increasingly high risks were handled. Here fault based liability failed to serve its balancing function where due care is not aimed at avoiding risk but handling risk in suitable manner.

However much like the writ of trespass developed to accommodate the current situation, and then fault based liability should also be developed in a way that it complements strict liability and no-liability principles. The issue then would be that unless the question is about a greater danger which can cause damage regardless of the care exercised by the