Bazley has without doubt been a hugely influential decision. In an age where increasing focus is placed upon corporate social responsibility the decision of the Supreme Court can be seen as the common law's response. Enterprise liability undoubtedly strikes a chord in a period where there is tremendous debate on the role and responsibilities of corporations. The decision has contributed to the expansion of employer responsibility through the doctrine of vicarious liability. As between two innocent parties decisions are more likely to favour third parties rather than employers than would previously have been the case. It would be easy to assume that enterprise liability will continue to further this expansion, but I am not convinced that this will come about. The reception of Bazley has not been uncritical – in particular there has been considerable criticism of the core concept of enterprise risk, the latter being the tool through which enterprise liability fashions new legal rules and reshapes existing ones. The criticism is likely to temper the desire to utilise the concept to bring about further significant change. Controversy centres upon whether the concept of enterprise risk is based upon a false dichotomy. Can one really distinguish between situations where the enterprise has created or increased the risk and not merely provided the opportunity for harm to arise? Equally problematic have been the attempts to arrive at a test which would allow judges at first instance to arrive at decisions in a manner consistent with the concept of enterprise liability.