Tort law incremental approach

Lockstep

WOuld anyone be able to summarise what is the incremental approach in tort law:pac:

I'm finding it fairly confusing to come to terms with.

Tom Young

Based on prior case law in common law jurisdictions, it is an approach employed to stop or curtail massive extensions/movements of the duty of care, in the law based on new or differing events.

Look at the development of Anns v Merton and Caparo for examples of this or indeed the below:

Is the right not to be shocked by inappropriate material a legal right, the breach of which might sound in damages? The answer to this question is, “probably not”. The courts appear to be reluctant to award damages in tort on the basis of what people see, or do not see, on television. Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] 2 All ER 426 suggests that an action will rarely if ever lie in private nuisance for interference with television reception, and the courts have often said that there can be no claim in tort for “mere” grief or anguish in relation to psychiatric harm (McLoughlin v O’Brian [1982] 2 All ER 298, p 311, per Lord Bridge; Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1991] 4 All ER 907, p 925, per Lord Oliver; White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509, p 1518, per Lord Goff). Furthermore, even if an offensive broadcast, such as one depicting images of aborted foetuses, did produce a recognised psychiatric illness, then a court would still probably rule out a claim. After all, the House of Lords deemed the broadcasts of the Hillsborough stadium disaster in Alcock v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police capable of giving rise to anxiety for the safety of relatives known or believed to be present in the area affected by the crush in the stadium, but, amongst other things, ruled out the claims of those viewers who were affected in this way and thereby suffered psychiatric illnesses. According to the Lords in Alcock, the broadcast scenes could not reasonably be regarded as giving rise to shock, in the sense of a sudden assault on the nervous system, and therefore failed to meet a requirement for a claim for negligently inflicted “nervous shock”. (The claimants had tried to sue the Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police, but, given the outcome of the case, they would presumably also have failed if they had tried to sue the broadcasters in tort.)

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2004/issue1/elvin1.html

Here you'd look at Kelly v Hennessy etc.