This is a complete and concise summary of the tort law subject assessed in the SQE 1 examination. It covers all the essential topics that are likely to appear in the exam, presented in the form of a mind map to help you comprehend the subject matter in a well-structured and easily memorable manner....
only if there's no established duty then need to apply test
Established duty in novel duty
whether D ought to reasonably
Donoghue test neighbouring principle foresee the likelihood of injury to
C?
Novel duty
1. reasonably foreseeable that D's action will affect C
Caparo test 2. Relationship between D and C is sufficiently close
Dutyofcare
3. Fair + reasonable + just to impose a
Public policy
duty
if harm is caused by public body
pure psychiatric harm
No duty of care owed pure economic loss
Exception 1 = Duty not to make situation worse
ommission
Exception 2 = Duty to take positive action
under relationship of control
, Reasonable person in D's situation
Skilled defendant = reasonable person with the specific skill
ultimate decision is on the court
+ support of reasonable body of professional opinion
learner driver reasonable driver
Standard of care
Under-skilled defendant = reasonable junior doctor reasonable junior doctor, regardless
person in that position / task of experience
if undertook task exceeded capability negligent
Children = SoC adjusted to their age
likelihood of the risk
Test 1: Risk of D's activities
risk of great injury
Test 2: Cost / Practicability of precautions unreasonable to not take precaution if low costs
BreachofDuty Achieve required standard
Greater the risk of injury greater steps need to be
taken
Failure to take precaution due to lack of resources = not a
defence
Burden of proof = C + on the balance of probabilities
Condition 1: things that caused harm are under D's control
Condition 2: accident will not happen without negligence
Inference of negligence (Res ipsa loquitur)
Proof of breach Condition 3: cause of accident is unknown to C
Burden of proof = D to show accident happen without
negligence
criminal offence involved careless conduct if convicted, C
can rely on the conviction as evidence
Civil Evidence Act 1968
not applicable if criminal conviction is not relevant to the
claim in negligence
, Burden of proof = C
where there's only one cause
But for test = But for the defendant’s breach, would
the harm to the claimant have occurred?
where there's multiple cause + all causes can
be individual cause of the damage
To prove causation
where there are multiple causes contributed to the damage
Material contribution
+ lack of any causes will lead to the damage not occurred
exceptional cases mesothelioma / dermatitis / asbestos
Material increase in risk
exposure
Causation of facts
D1 liable for all injury caused in 1st incident
for injury caused more than
one incident
D2 liable for subsequent injury to the
extent he made the C's damage worse
where damage happen through cumulative period
Damages
damages will be apportioned + each D only liable for their
divisible
share
C needs to sue all D to recover damages in full
for material contribution where damage happens in ONE incident
can be recovered in full from either D
only need to sue one of the D
indivisible
then the court will apportion the damages between
Ds D1 will recover a contribution from D2
apportionment only applies between D will not
affect damages received by C
Main test = Chain of causation is unlikely to be broken if the
intervening action is ought to be foreseeable by D as a likely
consequence of his negligence
Causation
instinctive intervention do NOT break chain of causation
unlikely to break chain of causation
Intervention of third party negligent intervention
both negligent Ds will be liable to the same damage
of C
reckless / intentional intervention likely to break chain of causation
unlikely to break chain of causation
negligent medical treatment
only medical treatment which was grossly negligent
Intervening event will break the chain of causation
Main test = Chain of causation will only be broken if C's act is
entirely unreasonable in all circumstances
Intervention of C
if C only acted carelessly not breaking the chain of
but D can claim contributory negligence
causation
Intervention of natural event
Wagon Mound test = Can a reasonable person foresee the
damage caused?
If the type of injury is foreseeable, it does not
matter that the precise way in which C was
Remoteness of damage Similar in type rule
injured only need to be the same type of injury
foreseeable
even if D could not reasonably foresee C's disability /
Egg-shell skull rule
condition damage is NOT too remote
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 EFT, 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 this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SQENotesK. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R302,02. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
