Tort Law for A Level: Negligence, Duty of Care, and Breach Explained

Introduction: What Is Tort Law?

Tort law occupies a significant portion of the Cambridge A Level Law syllabus and is one of the most practically relevant areas of legal study. A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm to another person, giving the injured party the right to claim compensation. Unlike criminal law, which is concerned with punishing wrongdoing, tort law focuses on providing a remedy for the person who has suffered loss or damage.

Negligence is the most important tort you will study at A Level, and this article provides a thorough examination of its three essential elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and resultant damage.

Duty of Care: The Foundation of Negligence

Before a claimant can succeed in a negligence claim, they must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. The modern law traces its origins to the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), where Lord Atkin formulated the \’neighbour principle\’: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

The current test for establishing a duty of care in novel situations is the Caparo v Dickman (1990) three-stage test: was the harm reasonably foreseeable? Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? All three elements must be satisfied.

Breach of Duty: The Standard of Care

Once a duty of care is established, the claimant must show that the defendant breached that duty by falling below the standard of the reasonable person. Several factors influence the standard expected.

In Bolton v Stone (1951), the likelihood of harm was relevant — because it was extremely unlikely that a cricket ball would leave the ground, there was no breach. In Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951), the seriousness of potential harm was considered. The cost and practicability of precautions also matter, as in Latimer v AEC (1953). The social utility of the defendant\’s activity is relevant too, as in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954).

Damage: Causation and Remoteness

The claimant must prove that the defendant\’s breach actually caused their loss and that the type of damage was not too remote. Factual causation uses the \’but for\’ test from Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969) — in that case, the patient would have died regardless of treatment, so the hospital\’s negligence did not cause the death.

Remoteness of damage is tested by the Wagon Mound (No.1) (1961) principle: the defendant is liable only for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable. However, the \’thin skull\’ rule means you must take your victim as you find them — if the type of damage is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent, as in Smith v Leech Brain (1962).

Defences and Remedies

Two key defences apply in negligence. Contributory negligence, under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, allows the court to reduce the claimant\’s damages if they were partly at fault. Consent (volenti non fit injuria) is a complete defence where the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk of harm.

The primary remedy in negligence is compensatory damages, which aim to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred. Damages may be for pecuniary loss or non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering, loss of amenity).

Exam Excellence Tips

Owais Mirchawala at alevellawteacher.com/ teaches his students to approach negligence problem questions systematically: work through each element in order — duty, breach, damage. For each, state the relevant law, cite the leading case, and apply it to the facts of the scenario.