Negligence is a breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. The duty of care owed in a number of situations such as driver and pedestrian, doctor and patient, employer and employee, teacher and student and in many other situations. Therefore, negligence is one of the largest areas of tort law. To establish liability in negligence, the claimant must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to comply with the required standard of care and, as a result, the claimant suffered loss or damage which did not it is too remote.[1] Therefore, it is important to prove all three elements because each of them is complex and conceptually distinct and all must coexist otherwise the negligence claim will fail. The first element that would have to be demonstrated by the claimant is that the defendant had a duty of care. In English tort law, one person may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that he or she does not suffer unreasonable harm or loss.[2] To ascertain whether a duty of care is owed, it is important to demonstrate whether there is a case to the effect that a duty of care exists. Otherwise there is the Caparo test, which derives from the famous case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. The Caparo test includes three requirements: predictability, proximity, fair, just, and reasonable. If the answer to the questions: the damage to the claimant was foreseeable, there was sufficient closeness between the parties and, thirdly, it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, it is positive that a duty of care can be imposed . This three-part test is used in cases involving: economic loss, psychiatric harm, omissions, acts of third parties and......half of paper......treatable. Accordingly, the defendant will only be liable if the negligence causes damage. There are various forms of damage ascertained: personal injuries, material damage and economic losses. This is where the “but for” test comes into play: without the defendant's breach of duty, would harm have occurred to the claimant? If "yes" the defendant is not liable. However, "but for" perhaps cannot solve all problems. For example, in the case of Barnet v Chelse and Kensington Hospital [1969] 1 QB 428, three men went to the hospital emergency department where Dr Banerjee refused to see them and advised them to go home and call their doctors. One of the men died a few hours later. The "but for" test showed that even if the deceased had been examined and admitted for treatment he would have died anyway, because it was established that he had been poisoned with arsenic.