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

Every topic in Tort Law, in the order the course teaches them. This is the whole syllabus for the module, not a selection.

Negligence: The Three Elements
Negligence: Duty of Care
Negligence: Breach of Duty and Standard of Care
Negligence: Causation and Remoteness
Negligence: Defences
Negligence: Pure Economic Loss
Negligence: Psychiatric Harm
Employers' Primary Liability
Vicarious Liability
Remedies for Personal Injury and Death
Occupiers' Liability to Visitors: OLA 1957
Occupiers' Liability to Non-Visitors: OLA 1984
Product Liability
Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Limitation Periods in Tort
Breach of Statutory Duty (Distractor Recognition)
Intentional Torts (Not in the SQE1 Tort Syllabus)

A real question from this module

Answer it before you decide

FLK1 · Tort Law

Question

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

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.

Pick another option to compare, or try five more free questions.

Related modules

Start free All 13 modules