"Recent developments expanding the concept of the duty of care to include public authorities are a retrograde step which fails to recognise the constraints within which they must work."
             In an effort to comprehensively address this issue, it is of utmost importance that the definition of 'duty of care' is reiterated; regardless of it being trite law.
             English law dictates that a defendant is liable for negligently inflicting harm only if the claimant can show that the defendant owed him (or her) a duty to take a reasonable care. This 'duty of care' is the aspect of negligence which has given rise to the most difficulties and where special considerations apply to public authorities.
             The courts' generally develop the law by analogy with previous cases. When the court is required to deal with a new situation, the so-called 'Caparo test' is applied. The test comprises the following three queries: foreseeability, proximity and whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
             However it is evident from case law that the three limbs of the test are just labels that could be attached to any decision, masking a host of other considerations that themselves determine the outcomes of cases.
             The question suggests that the imposition of 'duty of care' on public authorities would hinder their full function. This is a direct challenge to the fundamentalists who would state an omni-applicability of the law. Does it imply two separate sets of law, i.e. one for the authorities and another for the common-folk?
             There are a number of additional issues that only tend to arise in cases involving public authorities largely because the courts are conscious of their own constitutional role. They are wary of usurping functions which parliament has given to the Executive. As pointed out by the question, the courts are also concerned that providing remedies for individual c...