在卡帕罗建立的“三个阶段的测试”已经受到了激烈的批评，这支持了它不再适合定义责任的论点。测试本身详细说明了过失行为必须是合理可预见的，必须是接近的，必须是公平的，合理的，公正的责任。简•斯特普尔顿教授认为，“三阶段测试”最终是循环的，因此是空标签。[5]:霍夫曼勋爵进一步证明了这一点。他认为，三倍测试中的短语往往被四处传播，几乎没有引起什么关注。这点尤其正确，因为剑桥勋爵明确否认三重测试不能也不能直接回答职责问题。[7]他说:“邻近性和公平性的概念……不受任何精确定义的影响，因为这些定义对它们作为实际测试的实用性是必要的。””[8]这个讽刺演示了Caparo确定职责不相称。在巴克莱(Barclays)，沃克勋爵(Lord Walker)称，这项测试“并没有为我们所有的问题提供一个简单的答案，它只是一套相当粗糙的工具”。”[9]的治疗这个概念由上议院代表愿望达到实用的警示正义可能峰值的法律环境莫名其妙的那些工作。然而，在巴克莱遇到的困难是，尽管存在可预见性和可接近性，但仍要决定对巴克莱施加责任是否公平、公正和合理。他们在巴克莱的所有五位勋爵都呼吁更密切地关注在一个特定案例中出现的实际问题，即过失责任的可取性，而不要分心于抽象的责任“测试”。这表明“测试”本身是无用的，甚至可能会分散人们寻找责任的注意力。尽管如此，这对疏忽政策的新重点产生了影响。新的政策方法是否把法官变成了立法者，并消除了过失侵权行为发展的确定性?[11]中国英语学习网这样的概念给法治带来了危险的新问题，对我们的宪法构成了威胁。然而，这集中地证明了Capao测试在寻找英国侵权法下的注意义务方面是不合适的，而且是令人厌恶的。
英国law assignment代写:三个阶段的测试
The ‘three-stage test’ established in Caparo has been subjected to heated criticism, which supports the argument it is no longer suitable to define duties. The test itself details that negligent actions must be reasonably foreseeable, there must be proximity and it must be fair, reasonable, and just to impose liability. Professor Jane Stapleton argues that the ‘three-stage test’ are ultimately circular and therefore empty labels.[5] ’ This is further shown by Lord Hoffmann, who argued that the phrases of the three-fold test tended to be bandied about, shedding little light.[6] This is especially true as Lord Bridge explicitly disclaimed that the threefold test does not and cannot provide straightforward answers to the duty question.[7] He stated that “the concepts of proximity and fairness…are not susceptible of any such precise definition as would be necessary to give them utility as practical tests.’[8] This irony demonstrates Caparo’s unsuitability to determine duties. In Barclays, Lord Walker claimed that the test ‘does not provide an easy answer to all our problems, but only a set of fairly blunt tools.’[9] The treatment of this concept by the House of Lords represents the cautionary tale of aspiration to attain practical justice may peak in a legal landscape that is unintelligible to those who work with it. Nevertheless, the difficulty in Barclays follows deciding whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability to Barclays, despite there being foreseeability and proximity. All five of their Lordships in Barclays called for closer attention to the actual issues arising in a particular case, regarding the desirability of liability in negligence, without the distraction of abstract ‘tests’ for duty.[10] This suggests the ‘tests’ itself are useless and may even be a distraction for finding liability. Nevertheless, this creates implications for the new emphasis on policy in negligence. Does the new policy approach turn judges into legislators and remove any hope of certainty of development in the tort of negligence?[11] Such a concept brings in dangerous new issues to the rule of law and poses a threat to our constitution. Centrally, however, this demonstrates the Capao test as unsuitable in finding duties of care under English tort law, in addition to being held in distaste.
本文摘自网络以段落形式发布，并不是出自最优论文学术团队，请不要直接复制段落内容至您的作品，否则作业100% Turnitin剽窃。最优论文可以代写一切英国law assignment作业！请联系客服订购。
