FLK1 · SQE1 module
Tort Law
Negligence dominates the tort paper: duty, breach, causation and remoteness, tested through fact patterns that require you to apply the test rather than recite it.
Occupiers’ liability, vicarious liability and defences (contributory negligence, consent) are the recurring secondary patterns.
What this module covers
- The duty of care and the three-stage Caparo test
- Breach, causation and remoteness of damage
- Occupiers’ liability to visitors and non-visitors
- Vicarious liability and defences
240+ practice questions in this subject.
A real question from this module
Try it before you decide
A council carries out a statutory inspection of a footbridge but fails to notice a defect that a competent inspection would have found. The bridge later gives way, injuring a pedestrian. The council argues that, even applying the modern approach to a novel duty of care, no duty arises on these facts. Which combination of elements must the pedestrian establish to show that a duty of care existed?
- AThat the harm was foreseeable, that there was a relationship of proximity, and that imposing a duty is fair, just and reasonable
- BThat the council acted unreasonably by the standard of a competent inspector, and that this fell below the expected standard
- CThat the defect caused the injury, and that the type of harm suffered was not too remote a consequence of the defect
- DThat the council owed a duty under its contract with the pedestrian to maintain the bridge in a safe condition
- EThat no reasonable council could possibly have failed to notice a defect of this obvious and serious a kind
Show the answer and why
Answer: A. Whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation is assessed using the three-stage test: foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The second option describes the standard for breach, not duty. The third describes causation and remoteness, only relevant once a duty and its breach are established. The fourth assumes a contractual relationship not present on these facts, and the fifth applies an unreasonableness-style test that has no role in an ordinary negligence claim.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.