Two Cheers for Caparo: Ravenscroft v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb00962.x |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Author | Jenny Steele |
Zhe Modem Law Review
[Vol.
56
Two
Cheers
for
Caparo:
Ravenscroft
v
Rederiaktiebolaget
Transatlantic
Jenny
Steele
*
In
Ruvenscrofr,’
a mother whose son had died in particularly distressing circum-
stances brought an action against the defendant company, claiming that their
(admitted) negligence had caused the prolonged depressive reaction from which she
suffered after her son’s death. She had neither witnessed the accident nor seen her
son or his body after the incident, although she had been called to the hospital in
which he died.*
In
1991,
this
was perceived as a difficult case. The judge, Ward
J,
had some doubts about the correctness (though possibly not the justice) of his decision
in the plaintiffs favour, and that decision occupies fifteen pages
of
the Law
report^.^
Leave to appeal was granted.
By the following year, the case was regarded as
so
easy that the Court of Appeal
was able to reverse the decision without even calling upon counsel for the defendant.
This decision occupies a single page, since ‘it does not call for a fuller report.’4
The intervening factor was, of course, the decision of the House of Lords in
Alcock
v
Chief Constable
of
South Yorkshire Police.5
In that case, their Lordships
expressed doubts about the correctness of Ward
J’s
judgment in
Ruvenscrofr,
and
of the very similar result in
Hevicun
v
Ruane.6
It has been decided by the Court
of Appeal that
Ruvenscrofr
(and presumably therefore
Hevicun)
cannot survive the
actual decision in
Alcock.
Whilst it therefore appears that
Alcock
has injected at least an element of predict-
ability into the law on ‘nervous shock,” it is argued here that the redefinition of
Ruvenscrofr
as an easy case is an illustration of a general (but possibly avoidable)
problem which has threatened to affect negligence law since
Cupuro.s
The
Caparo
Approach
Although the
Cupuro
approach to the duty of care did not expressly place the same
emphasis on policy considerations which had been so troubling in the
Anns
test,g
it nevertheless made policy a key element in understanding and (perhaps) resolving
difficult negligence cases. The essence of ‘incremental’ development is that one
begins, not from first principles as
Anns
had suggested, but from previous authority.
In
addition though, it is recognised that what one is searching for in previous authority
*Lecturer in Law, University
of
Southampton.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ruvenscrofi
v
Rederiuktieboluget Transatlantic
[1991] 3 All ER 73 (first instance); [I9921 2 All ER 470
(Court of Appeal).
The apparent reason for her not having seen the body with her own eyes was the very nature of the
son’s death: the plaintiffs husband appears
to
have thought that the sight would be too distressing.
[1991] 3 All ER 73. See
for
example the closing remarks at p
87g-h.
[1992]
2
All ER 470.
[I9921
1
AC 310. The case
is
discussed by
K.J.
Nasir (1992)
55
MLR 705.
[1991] 3 All ER 65.
That
it
has not, even in terms
of
certainty, been an entirely successful decision has been generally
noted: see
for
example the discussion by Hedley [1992] 51
CLI
16, especially p 19.
Cupuro Industries plc
v
Dickmn
[1990] 2 AC 605.
Anns
v
Merton
LBC
[1978] AC 728, pp 751-752 (Lord Wilberforce).
244
0
The
Modern
Law
Review
Limited
1993
To continue reading
Request your trial