ØThe neighbour test
The classic formulation of the ¡®neighbour¡¯ test of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562 is the most frequently cited attempt to rationalize the duty of care: ¡°You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. ¡± Who then in law is my neighbour? He defined the neighbour as ¡°persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I an directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.¡±
This case is very famous, for it destroyed the privity fallacy. In this case, the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer was liable to a consumer who was made seriously ill by the partly decomposed body of a snail in the bottle from which she had been drinking. Although the consumer was a friend of the purchaser, the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Therefore, the test in Donoghue gave the law a starting point for the question of whether a duty of care existed, based on reasonable foreseeability of damage to the claimant. ØThe expansion of negligence liability
A more elaborate test ¡ª the two-stage-test of the existence of a duty of care, was put forward by Lord Wilberforce in Anns v Merton London Borough Council  1 AC 728 751-2: ¡°The first stage was to establish that the parties satisfied the requirements of the neighbour test. If this was done then a duty would exist unless the court found that policy dictated that there should be no duty .¡±
As the courts applied the two-stage-test,...