Caparo Industries Pre-Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932)

Introduction:
In this essay, I will discuss the view that the decision of the House of Lords in Caparo industries plc v Dickman [1990] and how it relates to cases pre Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] and discussing whether or not incrementalism can really be said to be a satisfactory way of determining the existence of a duty of care.

Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
In this first paragraph, I will be discussing negligence cases that took place before Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]. The first case I will be discussing is Langridge v Levy [1837]. The Plaintiff, Langridge, was given a gun by his father. His father purchased the gun from Levy, the defendant. The defendant told the Plaintiff's father the gun was of high quality and the defendant was made aware that the gun was for the use of the Plaintiff. The gun was defective, shattered and

Fidelity was not doing well and issued a profit warning in March 1984, which had halved its share price. In May 1984, Fidelity's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March confirming the negative outlook. The share price fell again. At this point Caparo had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 1984, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders, which now included Caparo. Caparo reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. Once it had control, Caparo found that Fidelity's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. Caparo sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses by determining the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been