Overview of Tort Law

Tort law covers seven main areas that you'll need to master for your A-Level exams. These include negligence (the big one that covers most accidents), occupiers liability (when someone gets hurt on your property), nuisance (annoying your neighbours), and Rylands v Fletcher (dangerous substances escaping).

Each area has its own specific rules and case law, but they all share common themes around duty of care, breach of that duty, and causation. You'll also need to understand vicarious liability (when employers are responsible for their employees' mistakes), plus the various defences and remedies available.

Quick Tip: Think of tort law as a toolkit - different situations need different legal tools to resolve them.

Aims of Tort Law

Understanding why tort law exists will help you nail those A03 evaluation sections in essays. The courts aren't just randomly making decisions - they're trying to achieve specific goals through their rulings.

The seven key aims include protection of interests (keeping people safe), fairness and deterrence (encouraging better behaviour), and compensation (making victims whole again). Justice and vindication ensure everyone knows who was right or wrong, while retribution and punishment provide that moral satisfaction when wrongdoers are held accountable.

These aims sometimes conflict with each other, which is perfect ammunition for your evaluation paragraphs. For example, unlimited compensation might bankrupt defendants, whilst limited compensation might not properly protect victims.

Exam Smart: Use these aims to evaluate whether tort law actually works in practice - it's brilliant A03 material!

Negligence - Duty of Care and Breach

Negligence is your bread-and-butter tort, so get comfortable with its three essential elements. First up is duty of care, which Blyth defined as failing to do what a reasonable person would do.

The landmark Donoghue v Stevenson gave us the neighbour principle, but modern cases use the Caparo test for novel situations. You need three things: reasonably foreseeable harm, a proximate relationship, and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. However, Robinson reminds us that if there's already precedent, just use that instead of overthinking Caparo.

Breach of duty uses Blyth's objective test - what would a reasonable person have foreseen? There are key exceptions though: children are compared to other children their age (Mullins), professionals get the Bolam test, and learners are still held to experienced standards (Nettleship v Weston).

Case Law Gold: Robinson shows that courts prefer using existing precedents over rigidly applying Caparo every time.

Risk Factors and Causation in Negligence

When courts decide if there's been a breach of duty, they'll weigh up several risk factors. These include any special characteristics of the claimant (Paris v Stepney), how serious the risk was (Bolton v Stone), what precautions were taken, and whether there was any public benefit involved.

For medical negligence, Montgomery v Lanarkshire established that doctors must get informed consent by explaining risks that might matter to patients. Children get special treatment too - they're only liable if their conduct was "careless to a very high degree" (Orchard v Lee).

Causation requires the "but for" test from Barnett - but for the defendant's breach, would the harm have occurred? The Wagon Mound case tells us damage can't be too remote, whilst the thin skull rule (Smith v Leech) means you take your victim as you find them.

Medical Alert: Montgomery changed everything for medical cases - informed consent is now absolutely crucial.

Occupiers Liability 1957 - Lawful Visitors

Occupiers Liability 1957 deals with people who have permission to be on your property. An occupier is anyone with control over land (Wheat v Lacon), and premises includes any structure, even vehicles.

Lawful visitors include invitees, licensees, people with contracts, or statutory rights (like police). Under s.2(2), occupiers must take reasonable steps so visitors will be reasonably safe - this is called the common duty of care.

Children get special protection under s.2(3)(a) because they're less careful than adults. The allurement principle from Glasgow Corporation v Taylor means attractive dangers should be protected against, though Phipps v Rochester says parents should supervise small children.

People with specialist jobs are expected to guard against obvious risks in their field (Roles v Nathan). For independent contractors, occupiers can avoid liability if they reasonably hired competent contractors and checked their work.

Child Safety: Remember that obvious risks to adults might not be obvious to children - the standard changes.

Occupiers Liability 1984 - Trespassers

OLA 1984 covers trespassers - people on land without permission. Unlike lawful visitors, trespassers can only claim for death and personal injury, and the duty owed is much lower.

BRB v Herrington overruled the harsh Addie v Dumbreck rule, establishing that known trespassers deserve some protection. Under s.1(3), you only owe a duty if you're aware of the trespasser or should reasonably know they might be there.

The standard of care under s.1(4) is just to take reasonable care to prevent injury. However, Ratcliffe v McConnell and Tomlinson make it clear that there's no liability for obvious risks - occupiers don't have to spend money protecting people from obvious dangers.

Keown v Coventry Healthcare shows that if someone knowingly does something dangerous, no duty is owed. The time of day and unexpectedness of the trespasser also matter (Donoghue v Folkstone).

Reality Check: Occupiers don't have to turn their land into a padded playground for trespassers.

Private Nuisance

Private nuisance is unlawful indirect interference with someone's use or enjoyment of their land. Only people with proprietary interest can sue (Hunter v Canary Wharf) - so tenants and owners, not just anyone affected.

You can sue the creator, authoriser, or adopter of the nuisance. The interference must be indirect (coming from the defendant's use of their land) and more than trivial (Halsey v Esso).

Whether interference is unreasonable depends on several factors. Locality matters for personal discomfort but not physical damage (St Helens Smelting). Malice can turn reasonable behaviour into nuisance (Christie v Davey), and duration matters - longer interference is more likely to be actionable.

Sensitivity can defeat claims (Robinson v Kilvert) - if you or your property is unusually sensitive, that's your problem. Social benefit doesn't stop something being a nuisance (Miller v Jackson) but might affect remedies.

Location Matters: "What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey."

Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher creates strict liability for dangerous substances that escape and cause damage. It fills gaps where neither negligence nor nuisance quite fit the situation.

The rule is simple: if you bring and accumulate a dangerous substance on your land for your own purposes, and it escapes causing damage to your neighbour's property, you're liable even without fault.

There are four key elements: accumulation (you must have deliberately brought it there), dangerous thing (likely to do mischief if it escapes), non-natural use (changed to "not ordinary" in Transco), and it must cause actionable harm.

Who can sue and be sued follows the Hunter v Canary Wharf principle - you need proprietary interest to claim. Cambridge Water added that the harm must be reasonably foreseeable, and Transco confirmed there's no liability for personal injury.

Strict Liability: This is one of the few areas where you can be liable even if you weren't negligent.