What Is Negligence in Tort Law?

Negligence is the most important tort in English law and a compulsory topic for every A-Level Law student. A tort is a civil wrong giving rise to a claim for compensation. Negligence is established where: the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; the defendant breached that duty; and the breach caused damage that was not too remote in law.

Negligence is a compulsory topic for CAIE A-Level Law (9084) students across Asia, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. It appears on Paper 2 (tort law) and is one of the most frequently examined areas, with problem questions testing the Caparo three-part test, breach of duty, and remoteness in almost every examination series.

All three elements must be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities. If any element fails, the negligence claim fails entirely. Courts will not award compensation for every careless act — the law imposes boundaries through each stage of this three-part test.

Duty of Care: The Caparo Three-Part Test

The modern test for duty of care was established in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. The House of Lords held that a duty of care arises where: (1) it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s act or omission would harm the claimant; (2) there was sufficient proximity — a sufficiently close relationship — between claimant and defendant; and (3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

The third limb is a policy control device. Courts use it to prevent liability in categories where imposing a duty would have undesirable effects — for example, against the police in the investigation of crime (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989]), or against public bodies where defensive decision-making would result.

The foundational authority remains Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], where Lord Atkin established 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 — persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.

Key Duty of Care Authorities

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] — Snail in a ginger beer bottle caused gastroenteritis. House of Lords established the neighbour principle and held manufacturers owe a duty to end consumers. Foundation of modern negligence.

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] — Auditors’ negligently prepared accounts relied upon by Caparo for a takeover bid. No duty owed to the public at large. Three-part Caparo test established.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] — Police owed no duty to potential victims of the Yorkshire Ripper. Policy: imposing such duty would cause defensive policing and resource diversion.

Kent v Griffiths [2000] — Ambulance service owed a duty once it had accepted the 999 call. Unreasonable delay in attending caused serious harm. Public body duty in operational (not policy) decisions.

Breach of Duty: The Reasonable Person

Breach of duty is assessed objectively against the standard of the reasonable person in the defendant’s position. The question is not what this particular defendant could do, but what the hypothetical reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances.

The standard is adjusted by expertise: professionals are judged against the reasonable professional in their field — the Bolam standard for doctors (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]). Learner drivers are judged against the standard of the competent, qualified driver, not a learner (Nettleship v Weston [1971]).

Courts weigh four factors when assessing breach: the likelihood of harm occurring (Bolton v Stone [1951] — very low risk, no breach despite theoretical danger); the severity of foreseeable harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] — one-eyed worker, higher duty); the cost and practicability of precautions; and the social utility of the defendant’s activity.

Causation and Remoteness

Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach, would the claimant have suffered that damage? In Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969], a doctor negligently turned away a patient who died of arsenic poisoning — but the patient would have died anyway. The ‘but for’ test failed; no causation.

The type of damage must not be too remote. Under the Wagon Mound test (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock [1961]), only the type of harm that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach is recoverable — not the precise manner or extent. The thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain [1962]) means that if the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for its full extent even if aggravated by the claimant’s vulnerability.

Exam Tips for Negligence Questions

Always follow the three-stage structure: duty → breach → damage. Apply the Caparo test to every new relationship in the scenario — do not assume a duty exists. For breach, identify the specific risk and apply the four-factor test with cases. For causation, apply ‘but for’ first, then check remoteness using Wagon Mound. State whether each element is satisfied before moving on.

Common evaluative issues: whether the Caparo test gives sufficient certainty; whether the policy stage (fair, just and reasonable) makes negligence too unpredictable; and whether the Bolam standard gives medical professionals excessive protection from liability.

Studying Negligence as a CAIE A-Level Law Student in Asia

CAIE A-Level Law students in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka are assessed on exactly the same negligence principles as students in England. The Caparo three-part test, the Bolam standard for professionals, and the Wagon Mound remoteness test are all examinable under the CAIE 9084 specification and carry significant marks across both structured and extended answer questions.

For students in Asian examination centres, one of the most effective strategies is to study negligence through worked problem questions — tracing each element (duty, breach, causation, remoteness) through a scenario step by step, as the examiner expects. Access to recorded lecture series taught by experienced A-Level Law teachers enables students to pause, rewatch, and consolidate understanding of complex doctrines such as the ‘but for’ test and the thin skull rule at their own pace.

Students preparing for the CAIE May/June or October/November series should prioritise the Caparo test, the reasonable person standard, and the key causation and remoteness authorities — these areas form the backbone of almost every negligence problem question set by CAIE examiners.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the three elements of negligence?

The claimant must prove: (1) the defendant owed them a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty by falling below the standard of the reasonable person; and (3) the breach caused damage that was not too remote.

What is the Caparo three-part test?

Established in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990], the test requires: (1) reasonably foreseeable harm; (2) sufficient proximity between parties; and (3) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

What is the ‘but for’ test in negligence?

The ‘but for’ test establishes factual causation: but for the defendant’s breach, would the claimant have suffered that damage? If the answer is ‘yes — they would have suffered it anyway’, causation fails.

What is the Wagon Mound test for remoteness?

Under Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock [1961], the type of damage suffered must have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach. The extent of damage need not be foreseeable, only its type.

What standard is a professional held to in negligence?

A professional is judged against the standard of the reasonable professional in their field, not the ordinary person. For doctors, this is the Bolam standard: a doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Three-stage test: duty of care → breach of duty → damage (causation + remoteness).
• Duty: Caparo three-part test — foreseeability, proximity, fair/just/reasonable.
• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]: neighbour principle — foundational authority.
• Breach: objective reasonable person standard, adjusted for professionals (Bolam).
• Factual causation: ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington [1969]).
• Remoteness: type of harm must be foreseeable (Wagon Mound [1961]).
• Thin skull rule: defendant liable for full extent if type of harm foreseeable (Smith v Leech Brain [1962]).

Access Recorded A-Level Law Lectures — Available Across Asia

If you are an A-Level Law student in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, or elsewhere in Asia and are looking for high-quality recorded lectures taught by an experienced CAIE Law teacher, we are here to help. Our recorded lecture series covers all CAIE A-Level Law (9084) topics — including Tort Law — with examination technique, worked problem questions, and full mark scheme guidance. Message us directly on WhatsApp: https://wa.me/923458099831 — or visit our contact page: https://alevellawteacher.com/contact-us/