SQE 1 Tort Law: Complete Study Guide; Prepare for your SQE 1 exam with our expert summary for Tort Law. This comprehensive guide includes clear summaries of all key topics, over 25 SQE-style practice questions, and a detailed module specification on the first page. Updated with the latest textbooks...
Welcome to the SQE 1 Tort Law guide. This textbook is designed to provide you with a thorough
understanding of the key principles of tort law needed to pass the SQE 1 exam. It covers all the
essential topics, ensuring you are well-prepared for both the FLK1 exam, where tort law is
tested. Each chapter is accompanied by sample questions to help consolidate your learning
and assess your understanding, guiding you towards a strong grasp of this vital area of law.
Chapter 1 Negligence: Duty of Care (2)
Chapter 2 Negligence: Breach of Duty (6)
Chapter 3 Negligence: Causation (11)
Chapter 4 Negligence: Pure Economic Loss (17)
Chapter 5 Negligence: Pure Psychiatric Harm(23)
Chapter 6 Negligence: Employers’ Liability (29)
Chapter 7 Defences (33)
Chapter 8 Principles of Remedies for Personal Injury and Death Claims (37)
Chapter 9 Vicarious Liability (46)
Chapter 10 Occupiers’ Liability (49)
Chapter 11 Product Liability (56)
Chapter 12 Nuisance (61)
Exam specification:
Candidates must apply core legal principles effectively, at the level of a competent newly
qualified solicitor, to client-based and ethical problems in the following areas:
• Negligence
• Remedies and defences
• Occupiers' liability
• Product liability
• Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
They must demonstrate honesty, integrity, and adherence to the SRA Principles, SoSC, and
Code of Conduct.
Candidates should apply knowledge from the listed areas of law, with questions covering any
combination of these topics as encountered in practice.
1
, 1 – Negligence: Duty of Care
he term ‘tort’ refers to a civil wrong that leads to a legal claim in court. It occurs when a legal
duty is breached, causing harm to another person, which results in compensation. The
individual who commits a tort is called the tortfeasor, and their actions are described as
tortious. Tort law governs situations where one person sues another for their actions. The
person initiating the case is called the claimant (historically referred to as the plaintiff before
1999), while the person being sued is the defendant.
Negligence is the most commonly used form of tort law, where a defendant’s careless actions
cause harm to the claimant. However, not every act of carelessness results in a successful
negligence claim. Legally, negligence refers to a breach of a duty of care owed to the claimant,
leading to harm that the defendant did not intend.
To determine whether the defendant should be held responsible for the harm caused, courts
first examine if the defendant owed a legal duty to the claimant. This is the first question in
negligence cases and leads to further analysis of other necessary elements, such as breach of
duty, causation, and possible defenses.
Negligence is a common law tort, meaning it is shaped by court decisions rather than statutory
law. Courts rely on previous case law to define the boundaries of negligence.
Duty of Care
Not every act of carelessness results in negligence liability, even if the defendant’s fault causes
damage to the claimant. A defendant can only be held liable if they had a legal duty to exercise
care toward the injured party. The first key element the claimant must prove is that the
defendant owed a duty of care.
Established Duty Situations
Certain relationships are well-established by case law to impose a duty of care. Once
recognized, these duties become legal precedents. However, courts can also find that no duty is
owed in some cases. For instance, in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989), the court
ruled that the police did not have a duty to investigate in a particular way, as their duty was to
the public at large.
Common examples of situations where a duty of care is recognized include:
• Road users to each other (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists)
• Doctors to patients
• Employers to employees
• Manufacturers to consumers
• Teachers to students
For instance, if Brian causes an accident by driving carelessly and Morris, a rescuer, is injured
while helping, Brian still owes a duty of care to Morris, as a rescuer. This rule follows from Baker
v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd (1959).
Novel Duty Situations
2
,While many duty situations are established, new cases occasionally arise that require the
courts to decide whether a duty should apply. For a claimant to rely on a duty of care in these
novel situations, the harm must typically be physical—either personal injury or property
damage, not purely economic or psychiatric harm.
The courts apply the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) to determine if a
duty of care exists in these cases. Lord Atkin’s judgment in Donoghue established that
individuals must take reasonable care to avoid harm to those directly affected by their actions.
The test for a duty of care is whether the defendant should have foreseen the likelihood of harm
to the claimant.
The Caparo case (1990) refined this test and introduced a three-part approach to assess
whether a duty of care should exist:
1. Whether harm to the claimant was foreseeable
2. Whether there was sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant
3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty
These criteria help the courts determine whether imposing a duty of care is appropriate,
considering broader policy implications, such as the potential for an overwhelming number of
claims and the available resources for compensation.
Applying the Duty of Care Test
When the defendant’s actions are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm, and there is proximity
between the parties, the Caparo test is usually satisfied. However, the courts may hesitate to
impose a duty of care in certain situations, such as harm caused by a public body or omissions
rather than active acts. Claims involving purely economic loss or psychiatric harm are also less
likely to succeed.
Fair, Just, and Reasonable
The "fair, just, and reasonable" aspect of the Caparo test is key in determining whether it is
appropriate to impose a duty of care. For example, in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
(1989), the court found that the police did not owe a duty to the family of a murder victim
because their duty was to the public at large. This decision reflected the notion that imposing a
specific duty on the police in that case would not have been fair or reasonable.
Liability for Omissions to Act
A key principle in negligence law is that a defendant is generally not liable for failing to act to
prevent harm. This rule comes from Stovin v Wise (1996), where it was held that a highway
authority was not liable for failing to improve a dangerous road junction.
Exceptions to the Rule
Although the general rule is no liability for omissions, there are exceptions. If a defendant takes
action, they have a duty not to make the situation worse. For example, if a person tries to help
someone in danger but accidentally causes more harm, they may be liable if their actions
worsen the situation.
3
,In some cases, a person has a positive duty to act when they have control over the situation or
the person at risk. Examples include an employer’s duty to an employee or a parent’s duty to a
child. In these situations, the defendant must take steps to prevent harm. For instance, a
lifeguard has a duty to rescue someone in distress, and a teacher has a duty to prevent students
from injuring themselves.
The case of Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970) illustrates the principle that if one party
has control over another, they may have a duty to act positively to prevent harm, such as a
teacher supervising students to avoid accidents.
In conclusion, negligence law distinguishes between situations with established duties and
novel cases, where the Caparo test is applied to decide if a duty of care exists. While the general
rule is that a defendant is not liable for omissions, exceptions exist when the defendant has a
duty to act, either due to their control over the situation or because of specific duties in certain
relationships.
4
, Sample Questions
Question 1
A claimant is driving along a road when another driver, due to their own carelessness, causes a
collision that results in injuries to the claimant. The other driver claims that they did not owe a
duty of care to the claimant because they were driving on a public road and did not know the
claimant personally.
Which statement best explains whether the other driver owes the claimant a duty of care?
A. Yes, because road users are generally owed a duty of care to each other, and the harm
caused was foreseeable.
B. Yes, because the claimant and the defendant were in close proximity, and it is fair, just, and
reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant.
C. No, because the defendant was not aware of the claimant personally and therefore does not
owe a duty of care.
D. No, because the defendant was not directly interacting with the claimant and the harm was
not foreseeable.
Answer
Option A is correct. Road users, such as drivers, owe each other a duty of care as part of an
established duty situation. The harm caused by the defendant’s careless driving was
foreseeable, making the imposition of a duty of care appropriate.
Question 2
A claimant suffered injury after using a guidebook published by a charity, which recommended
a certain hiking trail. The claimant followed the directions in the guidebook but was injured due
to an overlooked hazard not mentioned in the guidebook. The charity claims that it is not liable
because it is a non-profit organization and the guidebook is for general information.
Which of the following best describes whether the charity owes the claimant a duty of
care?
A. Yes, because the claimant is a foreseeable victim, and the charity's failure to properly inform
them could cause harm.
B. Yes, because the claimant is a foreseeable victim and there is a relationship of proximity
between the charity and the claimant, as the claimant relied on the guidebook.
C. No, because the charity is a non-profit and the court will likely not impose a duty of care in
this context.
D. No, because the claimant voluntarily chose to follow the guidebook and thus the charity does
not owe them a duty of care.
Answer
Option B is correct. The claimant’s reliance on the guidebook establishes a relationship of
proximity, and the charity could foresee the harm caused by its failure to provide accurate
information. The court is likely to impose a duty of care in these circumstances.
5
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SQELegalResources. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.38. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
