Summary of my lecture notes and readings for every module in first year Tort Law. Written in 'question-answer' format to help with memorising and covers all major issues, cases, etc. for the multiple choice exam.
Helped me get 100% on the exam, so hopefully it helps you too!
● Existence of a duty of care
● Breach of a duty of care
● Actionable loss caused by this breach
● Foreseeability of loss (i.e. remoteness of damage)
2. What was the law on negligence in the early 19th century? (1)
● Tortious duty is only imposed when there’s privity of contract (Winterbottom v Wright)
3. What was the law on negligence in the late 19th century? (2)
● Defendant will owe a duty of care to use reasonable care and skill even when there’s no
contract (Heaven v Pender)
● Duty is imposed where there’s physical proximity (Le Lievre v Gould)
4. What is the neighbourhood principle? (4)
● Obiter dicta by Lord Atkins in Donoghue v Stevenson
● Is the idea that reasonable care needs to be taken to avoid foreseeable harm to
neighbours (someone closely and directly affected)
● Imposes a moral and social responsibility to be a good Samaritan
● Allows holding someone liable for negligence without there being a pre-existing
relationship (e.g. a manufacturer to the ultimate consumer of their product)
5. THREE cases which show a claimant needs to be foreseeable
● No liability in Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (not a foreseeable victim)
● No liability in Bourhill v Young (duty is not to the world at large)
● Liability in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co but only for the harm within the vicinity the
borstal boys escaped from (else would be an excessive burden)
6. The incremental test for a duty of care (3)
● Established in Anns v Merton
,● A duty of care is owed where there’s a sufficient relationship of proximity or
neighbourhood which makes damage foreseeable, and there’s nothing which ought to
negative or reduce the scope of this duty (policy)
● Overruled by Murphy v Brentwood
7. Test for duty of care in novel cases (3)
● Established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
● Is a three-stage test: damage needs to be foreseeable, there needs to be a relationship of
neighbourhood or proximity, and it needs to be ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose it
● Set out in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales that it’s only for novel cases as
principles of negligence develop incrementally and by analogy, with policy relevant
8. THREE cases where it wasn’t ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care
● No duty of care in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire because it would limit police
discretion and lead to them investigating with a defensive state of mind
● No duty of care in Osman v UK because finding police liable for failing to restrain a
violent criminal would go against public policy (but no blanket immunity)
● No duty of care in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire because the police don’t
have a general duty to prevent the occurrence of harm
,TOPIC 2: BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE
1. Standard courts use when considering if a duty has been breached (1)
● Use the objective standard of the reasonable man (i.e. what they should have done)
2. The FOUR factors the court will consider
● Probability of harm
● Gravity of harm
● Cost of eliminating the risk
● Utility of the defendant’s conduct
3. TWO cases which show harm needs to be probable
● No liability in Bolton v Stone because the reasonable man doesn’t need to take
precautions against every foreseeable risk
● Liability in Miller v Jackson because the risk was probable, and thus exposing the victim
to this risk couldn’t be justified
4. TWO cases which show the gravity of harm is considered
● Liability in Paris v Stepney Borough Council defendant faced more serious injury
● Liability in Haley v London Electricity Board because there was a foreseeable increased
risk of injury to a certain type of claimant
5. TWO cases which show the cost of eliminating the risk is considered
● ‘Learned Hand’ formula established in United States v Carroll Towing Co (burden of
preventing the harm needs to be less than the probability and gravity of harm)
● Economic efficiency of this formula seen in Latimer v AEC; showed it would have been
unreasonable for the defendant to take further more expensive precautions
6. Shows the utility of the defendant’s conduct is considered (3)
● No liability in Watt v Hertfordshire because purpose was to save life and limb
● S1 Compensation Act 2006 says the court should consider whether the standard of care
will prevent desirable activity from being undertaken
● S2 Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 says the court must consider if
the defendant was acting for the benefit of society
, 7. Is the standard of care imposed objective or subjective? (4)
● Seen in Nettleship v Weston that it’s objective
● Is fair because a subjective approach would punish professionals for their expertise
● Only need to live up to the standard of care that was indicated when responsibility was
assumed (seen in Philips v Whiteley)
● S4 SARAH Act 2015 acknowledges people may act unreasonably in emergencies and
stressful situations
8. Which defendants are treated differently? (3)
● Defendants with impaired mental functioning might not have liability (e.g. had defence
of automatism in Mansfield v Weetabix because didn’t know hypoglycemic condition)
● Children will be held to the standard of ordinarily prudential children their age
● Companies only liable if the person responsible represented the directing mind and will
of the company (Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Natrass)
9. TWO examples of non-delegable duties
● An employer’s duty to protect their employees
● The duties of educational authorities (e.g. Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association)
10. Test for a breach of duty for medical professionals (3)
● Set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee that a medical professional
needs to act in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion
● Slightly modified in Bolitho v City and Hackney Area Health Authority to mean that this
body needs to be reasonable and competent
● Also decided in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board that a doctor must take
reasonable care to ensure a patient is aware of any material risks they are likely to attach
significance to
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 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 ambershah. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.26. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
