Contents and Specification Overview

You're looking at one of the most important areas of your A Level Law course. Tort law makes up a massive chunk of your final grade - 33.3% to be exact - so getting comfortable with these concepts now will pay off big time.

The 2020 specification covers eight core areas that you absolutely must know inside out. These range from basic negligence principles to more complex areas like vicarious liability and Rylands v Fletcher. Each topic builds on the others, so don't skip ahead thinking you can cram later.

Your exam will test three key skills: demonstrating knowledge (AO1), applying legal rules to scenarios (AO2), and critically evaluating the law (AO3). The good news? Once you understand the structure, tort law becomes much more manageable than it first appears.

Top Tip: The complete specification document is your best friend - bookmark that OCR link and refer to it regularly to stay on track with what examiners actually want to see.

Exam Technique and Assessment

Here's the reality: knowing the law isn't enough - you need to know how to show what you know under exam pressure. Your H418/02 paper is worth 80 marks total, split between Law Making (20 marks) and Tort Law (60 marks).

Section B is where tort law lives, and you'll face three 20-mark questions. Here's the clever bit: you get to choose between Part 1 or Part 2, so you can play to your strengths. Essay questions test AO1 + AO3 (knowledge plus evaluation), while scenario questions test AO1 + AO2 (knowledge plus application).

Time management is crucial - you've got roughly 1.5 minutes per mark, but factor in reading time too. Always plan your answers briefly, highlight key terms in questions, and never write lists. The examiners want continuous prose that directly answers what's being asked.

Remember to cite relevant cases and Acts throughout your answers. In scenarios, use the names given in the question - it shows you're engaging with the specific facts rather than just regurgitating generic legal principles.

Quick Check: Can you explain the difference between AO1, AO2, and AO3? If not, reread this section - understanding assessment objectives is half the battle won.

Rules and Theory of Tort Law

Think of tort law as your legal shield when someone's wronged you. Unlike criminal law where the state prosecutes, tort is purely between you (the claimant) and whoever caused your problems (the defendant). It's civil law designed to get you compensation when you've suffered loss, injury, or property damage.

The burden of proof sits squarely on your shoulders as the claimant. You need to prove your case "on the balance of probabilities" - basically showing you're more likely right than wrong (just 51%). This is much easier than the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" because nobody's going to prison here.

Remedies come in two main flavours: damages (money) and injunctions (court orders to stop something). Special damages cover your losses up to trial (medical bills, lost wages), while general damages cover future losses (ongoing pain, reduced earning capacity). The whole point is getting you back to where you were before everything went wrong.

Reality Check: If someone's seriously injured you, you'll be praying they've got good insurance - because that's where your compensation will actually come from, not their personal bank account.

Fault vs Strict Liability

Here's where tort law gets interesting - not all wrongs are created equal. Some torts require you to prove the defendant was actually at fault (did something wrong), while others don't care about fault at all.

Fault-based torts like negligence and occupier's liability put the burden on you to prove wrongdoing. This means hiring expert witnesses, gathering evidence, and potentially walking away empty-handed if you can't prove fault - even when you're genuinely hurt. It's tough but fair, since we don't want people getting sued for genuine accidents.

Strict liability torts flip the script entirely. Nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, and vicarious liability don't require proof of fault - if the legal criteria are met, compensation follows automatically. This protects people from inherently risky activities or situations.

The law constantly balances public and private interests. Sometimes moral wrongs aren't legal wrongs, and sometimes justice feels incomplete because money can't truly fix everything. A paralysed accident victim might win damages, but can money really restore their pre-accident life?

Think About It: Should we have a "no-fault" compensation system like New Zealand, where everyone gets help regardless of who's to blame? The current system can feel pretty harsh on genuine victims.

Liability in Negligence - The Basics

Negligence is everywhere in tort law - from car crashes to medical mistakes, it's the go-to claim when accidents happen. The 1856 definition from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks still holds: failing to do what a reasonable person would do, or doing what they wouldn't do.

To win a negligence claim, you need to tick five boxes: duty of care owed, duty breached, proximate relationship, reasonably foreseeable damage, and it must be fair/just/reasonable to impose liability. Miss any one of these and your claim fails completely.

Duty of care started with the famous Donoghue v Stevenson snail-in-ginger-beer case (1932), establishing Lord Atkin's "neighbour principle". This evolved into the modern three-part Caparo test: was harm foreseeable, is the relationship close enough, and is it fair to impose a duty?

Breach of duty uses an objective test - comparing the defendant to a reasonable person doing the task competently. But here's the catch: professionals get judged by professional standards (Bolam test), while learner drivers get no allowance for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston). Children get judged against other children their age, which seems fairer.

Key Insight: The law doesn't care if you're having a bad day or you're inexperienced - you're held to the standard of someone competent, which might seem harsh but protects the public and ensures insurance works.

Risk Factors and Causation in Negligence

Courts aren't robots - they consider risk factors when deciding if someone's been negligent. If you've got special characteristics that make injury more likely (Paris v Stepney), defendants owe you higher care. Small risks might not require extreme precautions (Bolton v Stone), but if prevention is cheap and easy, you'd better take precautions (Latimer v AEC).

Emergency situations get special treatment - greater risks are acceptable when lives are at stake (Watt v Herts County Council). The law recognises that split-second decisions under pressure shouldn't be judged by armchair critics with all the time in the world.

Causation has two parts: factual and legal. Factual causation uses the "but for" test - but for the defendant's actions, would the injury have happened? (Barnett v Chelsea). Legal causation asks whether it's fair to blame the defendant and whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable (Wagon Mound).

The "eggshell skull rule" (Smith v Leech Brain) means defendants must take victims as they find them. If your pre-existing condition makes injuries worse, tough luck for the defendant - they pay for all consequences. Sometimes life isn't fair, but the law tries to protect vulnerable people.

Remember: Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") helps when proving negligence is nearly impossible - like finding a surgical swab inside you after an operation. The accident wouldn't have happened unless someone was negligent.

Evaluating Negligence Law

The negligence system has serious problems that you need to understand for essay questions. Proving fault is expensive and time-consuming - you need lawyers, expert witnesses, and often years of stress. Even "no win, no fee" arrangements require a 75% chance of success, leaving many genuine victims without help.

Court proceedings bring all the usual civil law nightmares: cost, delay, stress, and uncertainty. Time limits are strict - three years for personal injury, six for property damage. Miss the deadline and you're out of luck, regardless of how strong your case is.

The law's development through judicial precedent creates a patchwork of rules that can seem random. Unelected judges make major policy decisions (Donoghue massively extended liability), and the third part of Caparo has been criticised for letting authorities like police escape liability unfairly.

Reform ideas include no-fault compensation schemes like New Zealand's system, funded by taxation rather than requiring fault proof. This would be faster, cheaper, and help everyone who needs it. Compulsory insurance schemes or greater use of mediation could also reduce the adversarial nature of current law.

Big Picture: Should we prioritise getting help to everyone who needs it, or maintaining the principle that people should only pay when they're actually at fault? There's no perfect answer.

Summary and Question Approach

When tackling 20-mark negligence questions, follow a logical structure that hits every essential element. Start with Blyth's reasonable person test, then work through the Caparo duty of care requirements systematically.

Check if the duty's been breached considering any risk factors that might raise or lower the standard expected. Apply causation tests - both the "but for" test and whether damage was reasonably foreseeable. Don't forget the eggshell skull rule if the victim had pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Finally, consider available defences - contributory negligence (partial defence reducing damages) and consent/volenti (complete defence). Both can be argued together, and they often determine whether a claim succeeds or fails.

The reform proposals show negligence law isn't perfect. No-fault schemes, compulsory insurance, and alternative dispute resolution could all improve access to justice. Understanding these criticisms and alternatives demonstrates the analytical thinking examiners love to see.

Exam Strategy: Structure is everything in negligence questions. Work through each element systematically, apply relevant cases, and don't jump around between different parts of the test.

Defences to Negligence Claims

Even when negligence is proven, defendants aren't necessarily doomed. Two key defences can dramatically change outcomes: contributory negligence and consent (volenti), and both can be argued simultaneously.

Contributory negligence under the Law Reform Act 1945 is a partial defence that reduces damages when claimants contribute to their own harm. Judges decide the percentage of blame - if you're 30% at fault, your damages drop by 30%. It's incredibly common in road traffic accidents where victims weren't wearing seatbelts (Froom v Butcher) or were speeding themselves (Stinton v Stinton).

Consent (volenti non fit injuria) is a complete defence meaning "to a willing person, no injury is done." For this nuclear option to work, defendants must prove claimants knew the precise risk and chose to accept it freely. It's banned for road traffic accidents and won't work when claimants had no real choice (Smith v Baker).

The key difference: contributory negligence reduces compensation, while successful consent eliminates it entirely. Volenti is tested subjectively - defendants can't argue victims should have known the risks; they must prove victims actually knew and accepted them.

Real Talk: These defences often determine case outcomes more than the original negligence. A strong contributory negligence argument can turn a £100,000 claim into a £30,000 payout.

Occupier's Liability - The Basics

Occupier's liability covers the classic "slip, trip, and fall" scenarios when people get hurt on someone else's property. Two separate Acts govern this area: OLA 1957 for lawful visitors and OLA 1984 for trespassers. Getting the wrong Act means getting the wrong answer.

An "occupier" isn't necessarily the owner - it's whoever has sufficient control over premises (Wheat v Lacon). "Premises" includes almost anything: buildings, vehicles, ships, even ladders. If someone controls it and you can be on it, occupier's liability probably applies.

Lawful adult visitors under OLA 1957 include invitees, licensees, ticket-holders, and statutory entrants like meter readers. They're owed a "common duty of care" - occupiers must take reasonable steps to ensure safety, but don't need to eliminate every possible risk (Laverton v Kiapasha).

Child visitors get special protection under s.2(3) OLA 1957 because "children are less careful than adults." Premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age, and occupiers must guard against "allurements" - dangerous attractions that might tempt children (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor). The younger the child, the higher the duty.

Practical Point: If you exceed your permission as a visitor - like wandering into a "Staff Only" area - you might become a trespasser and lose OLA 1957's stronger protections. Stay where you're supposed to be!