Distinction level (82/100) Tort Law Exam Notes, including prompts for essay questions based on the four critical evaluation topics:
Unit 1 – Negligence: Duty of care and public bodies
Unit 3 – Negligence: Pure psychiatric harm
Unit 5 – Employers’ liability
Unit 7 – Product liability
...
TORT LAW EXAM DOC
ESSAY QUESTIONS - GENERAL STRUCTURE..................................................................................................1
AIMS OF TORT ESSAY PROMPTS........................................................................................................................ 2
NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE ESSAY.............................................................................................................. 3
PURE ECONOMIC LOSS ESSAY............................................................................................................................5
PURE PSYCHIATRIC HARM ESSAY.................................................................................................................... 6
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ESSAY......................................................................................................................... 7
VICARIOUS LIABILITY ESSAY.............................................................................................................................7
PRODUCT LIABILITY ESSAY................................................................................................................................8
PROBLEM QUESTIONS - GENERAL STRUCTURE........................................................................................10
1+2 NEGLIGENCE................................................................................................................................................... 11
[1] Duty of care..................................................................................................................................................... 12
[2]Standard of care & breach of duty....................................................................................................................18
[3] Proof of Breach............................................................................................................................................... 20
[4] Causation......................................................................................................................................................... 21
[5] Defences.......................................................................................................................................................... 23
3A PURE ECONOMIC LOSS................................................................................................................................. 25
3B PURE PSYCHIATRIC HARM.......................................................................................................................... 29
4 REMEDIES.............................................................................................................................................................32
Non-fatal claims....................................................................................................................................................32
Fatal claims........................................................................................................................................................... 34
5A EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY...............................................................................................................................36
[1] Statutory health and safety regulations........................................................................................................... 36
[2] Common law negligence................................................................................................................................. 37
5B VICARIOUS LIABILITY.................................................................................................................................. 40
6 OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY................................................................................................................................... 42
[1] Visitors - Occupiers Liability.......................................................................................................................... 42
[2] Trespassers - Occupiers Liability.................................................................................................................... 45
7 PRODUCT LIABILITY........................................................................................................................................ 47
[1] Contract Law - Breach of Contract................................................................................................................. 47
[2] Consumer Protection Act 1987....................................................................................................................... 48
[3] Negligence.......................................................................................................................................................49
8A LAND.................................................................................................................................................................... 51
8B TRESSPASS TO LAND...................................................................................................................................... 56
Critical Evaluation Topics
Unit 1 – Negligence: Duty of care and public bodies
Unit 3 – Negligence: Pure psychiatric harm
Unit 5 – Employers’ liability
Unit 7 – Product liability
1
,TORT LAW EXAM STRUCTURES
ESSAY QUESTIONS - GENERAL STRUCTURE
Introduction then use critical evaluation as you go along
In essays include as many aims of tort as possible
- Subject matter
- Overall view is X and this is what I will conclude
- Explaining the decision and the merit of it
- Legal floodgates, diversion of resources
- On this judgement, Judge found this
- I think the overall argument is this…
AIMS OF TORT ESSAY PROMPTS
Peter Cane, two intrinsic characteristics of Tort are ‘to provide guidance to individuals about how they may and
ought to behave in their interactions with others [and] to provide protection for certain interests of individuals.’ [P.
Cane, Anatomy of Tort Law 1st edition 1997]
The truth is that tort law is a mosaic in which the principles of corrective justice and distributive justice are
interwoven. And in situations of uncertainty and difficulty a choice sometimes has to be made between the two
approaches. ‘Lord Steyn McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59
Winfield - Tort is characterisied by duties "primarily fixed by law" and owed "towards persons generally"
FUNCTIONS OF THE LAW OF TORT
(1) COMPENSATION
● Compensation of victims = law of tort's principal function
● Damages or injunctions
● Limitations:
○ (1) Litigation costs money
■ Lord Woolf's Access to Justice report (1996) revealed that, for tort claims below £12,500,
the cost was £1.35 for every £1 claimed
○ (2) Court system - delay in receiving compensation
○ (3) Can the defendant afford to compensate?
● Insurance - indemnifies the defendant against legal liability
● "Compensation culture" in the UK - Stephen Sedley (2020)
● Role of media in 'compensation culture' (A.Morris, 2007)
● The Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 puts into effect the suggestions of
the 2010 Jackson Review, aiming to streamline civil justice litigation by introducing reforms in procedures
and costs.
● Concerns about Compensation Culture - Compensation Act 2006
○ Compensation Act 2006, s 1 - Deterrent effect of potential liability
■ A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining
whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care
2
,TORT LAW EXAM STRUCTURES
(whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a
requirement to take those steps might—
● (a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent
or in a particular way, or
● (b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable
activity.
○ Cole v Davis Gilbert 2007 - Court of Appeal found no breach of duty & said 'accidents happen'
● 2010 Government health and safety review, 'Common Sense, Common Safety' - considers the impacts
to activities due to fears around tort litigation e.g school trips
(2) DETERRENCE
● Potential liability in tort can possibly have a deterrent effect, even if someone is insured - there are other
adverse impacts of being found negligent - commercial/professional reputation
● e.g Doctor - Medical register
● Detterent effect is weakened by insurance
○ "no claims bonus" on driving insurance does not always have a detterent impact on reckless driving
○ There were 4,851 dangerous driving offences in England and Wales in 2022/23, compared with the
previous eyar when there were 4,112. (Statistica, 2023)
(3) JUSTICE
● Retribution - person in the wrong
● Compensation - victim
(4) HUMAN RIGHTS
● Claimant's may wish to make a "point of principle
● Significance: Imposes a duty on the state - respect & consistency with Human rights
● Prevent prevalent large scale incidents e.g Grenfell Tower fire, Omagh bombing 1998
POLICY REASONS ARGUMENT
● The legal floodgates to be opened too widely
● Lord Denning (1971) - policy = "unruly horse" that can be "kept under control" (Enderby Town Football
Club Ltd v The Football Association Ltd)
OVERLAPPING NATURE OF TORT ARGUMENT
● Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather (1994) - negligence & nuisance
● Rylands v Fletcher
HUMAN RIGHTS RELEVANT TO TORT LAW - ECHR
● Art 2: Right to life
● Art 3: Right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment
● Art 5: Right to liberty and security
● Art 6: Right to a fair trial
● Art 8: Right to respect for private and family life
● Art 10: Right to freedom of expression
NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE ESSAY
3
, TORT LAW EXAM STRUCTURES
Introduction
● Set the contect of the question
● Explain the fundamental principles of negligence
○ Define negligence - breach by the defendant of a duty of care owed to the claimant tha results in
damage to the claimant unintended by the defendant
○ "...undesired by the defendant" -> careless behaviour
● State the Argument you are going to pursue and explain how you are going to answer the question
Developments in duty of care
● Donoghue v Stevenson test
● Anns v Merton LBS test
● Junior Brooks v Veitchi
○ Why is Junior Brooks v Veitchi (1983) confined to its own facts & not followed?
● D.Howarth - Examines the duty of care through the lens of political theory, ultimately asserting that the
notion of a singular duty is most favorable for fostering simplicity and rational evolution in negligence.
Responses to Caparo
● Lord Bingham in Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclarys Bank (2007), Caparo three-fold test itself
doesn't provide a straightforward answer to the "vexed question" of duty of care in novel situations
● Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (2018)
Role of policy
● A.Robertson (2013) - Considers the influence of policy considerations and the presence of alternative
remedies in judicial rulings pertaining to the duty of care.
Duty of care - problematic?
● Hepple (1997) - "formal incoherence" of negligence law
● Hedley (2002) - Duty of care is a "fiction that has no legal consequences until it is broken"
Duty of care - needed?
● S.Bailey (2006) - Supports the gradual decline of public law reasoning in this domain, resulting in the
determination of public authorities' liability being guided by ordinary principles of negligence.
● J. Stapleton (1997) and M. Stauch (2001) are trying to find a better way to define remoteness compared to
Lord Hoffmann's 'scope of duty' in Banque Bruzelles (1997). According to J. Stapleton, it often comes
down to "circumstances" that require drawing a line in the chain of causation.
Causation & Remoteness
● M. Stauch thinks that determining remoteness is fundamentally based on principles. It's better addressed by
considering the kind of risk caused by the defendant and the sequence of events, rather than getting too into
the details of the actual damage.
Duty of care and the police
● 'Operational' liability
● Crime control
● Lasting effect of Hill and Brooks
● C.McIvor (2010) - Examines the present status of police immunity originating from Hill, contending that it
is excessively broad and, in certain situations, lacks justification.
Unborn child as claimant
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lawyerlady123. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €12,89. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
