A court is deciding whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation not covered by previous authority, using the approach in Caparo Industries v Dickman. It has found that damage to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable and that there was a relationship of proximity between the parties. What further question must it ask?

Correct answer: A) Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Explanation

Under Caparo, a duty of care arises in a novel situation where damage was reasonably foreseeable, there was sufficient proximity, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Later cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire stress that the courts develop the law incrementally by analogy with established categories, but these factors remain central in genuinely novel cases. Negligence does not require intention, insurance is not part of the test, and contributory negligence affects the amount of damages, not whether a duty exists.