Skip to content
FLK1 · 240+ cited questions

Tort Law

Negligence dominates the tort paper: duty, breach, causation and remoteness, tested through fact patterns that require you to apply the test rather than recite it.

Occupiers’ liability, vicarious liability and defences (contributory negligence, consent) are the recurring secondary patterns.

What is covered
  • The duty of care and the three-stage Caparo test
  • Breach, causation and remoteness of damage
  • Occupiers’ liability to visitors and non-visitors
  • Vicarious liability and defences
Sample question

See the format

Written for this page only, in the same single best answer format as the 240+ questions in the Tort Law section of the course.

Sample question

A council carries out a statutory inspection of a footbridge but fails to notice a defect that a competent inspection would have found. The bridge later gives way, injuring a pedestrian. The council argues that, even applying the modern approach to a novel duty of care, no duty arises on these facts. Which combination of elements must the pedestrian establish to show that a duty of care existed?

A That the harm was foreseeable, that there was a relationship of proximity, and that imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable
B That the council acted unreasonably by the standard of a competent inspector, and that this fell below the expected standard
C That the defect caused the injury, and that the type of harm suffered was not too remote a consequence of the defect
D That the council owed a duty under its contract with the pedestrian to maintain the bridge in a safe condition
E That no reasonable council could possibly have failed to notice a defect of this obvious and serious a kind

Whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation is assessed using the three-stage test: foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The second option describes the standard for breach, not duty. The third describes causation and remoteness, only relevant once a duty and its breach are established. The fourth assumes a contractual relationship not present on these facts, and the fifth applies an unreasonableness-style test that has no role in an ordinary negligence claim.

Authority: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.

Unlock the full Tort Law section

A free account unlocks the first section of Tort Law, including its revision mind-map, immediately.

Create a free account