In Negligence law cases which were heard after 70’s, the court’s restrictive approach towards duty of care is evident.

Although the negligence law cases indicate an expansion of the concept of duty of care after the landmark decision in the Donoghue v Stevenson and several other cases, it became clear that the trend could not subsist for long, as it could open the floodgates of litigation. Lord Keith in Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd (1988) stated that the observations of Lord Wilberforce in the Anns case would lead to a failure to analyse and weight all the relevant considerations when determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In Yuen Kun Yeu v lawyer General of Hong Kong (1988) Lord Keith further stated that the Anns test which was introduced in the Anns case should be rejected on the ground that it elevated the duty of care to a degree of importance greater than it merits. Thus the Anns test should not be regarded as a suitable guide to determine the existence of duty of care in all the circumstances. In Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) the House of Lords introduced a new test as an alternative to the Anns test. The “Caparo” test includes three elements, namely, foreseeable harm to the plaintiff, proximity or neighbourhood between the plaintiff and the defendant as well as whether imposing a duty of care is fair, just and reasonable. In the Anns test, duty of care between the parties was assumed, which then had to be refuted on the basis of policy considerations. In contrast, the Caparo test creates an assumption against the existence of duty of care between the parties. In Stovin v Wise (1996), Lord Hoffmann stated that the default position is that a person who suffers loss is not prima facie entitled to compensation from a person whose act or omission is said to have cause it. Marc Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (1996) is anther case where a similar approach was taken. Negligence law cases in Australian High Court indicates further developments in this area of law, as in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) and several other cases, an incremental approach to duty of care was preferred.