UK Tort Law

The Tort of Negligence

Negligence requires proof of a duty of care, breach of that duty, factual and legal causation, and damage not too remote.

Duty of Care. The modern law begins with Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, in which Lord Atkin articulated the neighbour principle: a duty is owed to persons so closely affected by one’s acts that they ought to be in contemplation. The Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605) requires foreseeable harm, proximity between the parties, and that it be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. Liability for pure economic loss is confined to negligent misstatement where a special relationship of reliance exists (Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465).

Breach of Duty. The standard is objective: the reasonable person. Professionals are judged by the standard of the ordinary skilled member of their profession (Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582).

Causation. Factual causation applies the “but for” test: the damage would not have occurred but for the breach. In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428, the hospital’s negligent failure to treat did not cause death because the patient would have died regardless. Where the but-for test is unworkable, the courts apply material contribution (Bonnington Castings Ltd v. Wardlaw [1956] AC 613) or material increase in risk (Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22). Legal causation requires that no intervening event — a novus actus interveniens — breaks the chain.

Remoteness. Damage is too remote if not of a kind foreseeable to a reasonable person. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 rejected the direct consequence test, holding that only the kind, not the extent, of damage need be foreseeable. The “thin skull” rule provides that the defendant takes the claimant as they find them.

Occupiers’ Liability

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 governs liability to lawful visitors. The occupier owes a “common duty of care” to ensure that the visitor is reasonably safe for the purposes of the invitation. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 extends a duty to trespassers, requiring the occupier to take reasonable care if the occupier knows of a danger, knows the trespasser may come into the vicinity, and the risk is one against which it is reasonable to offer protection.

Employer’s Liability

Employers owe a non-delegable duty to provide competent staff, adequate plant and equipment, a safe system of work, and a safe workplace. Breach gives rise to personal liability. Employers are also vicariously liable for torts committed by employees in the course of employment, provided a sufficiently close connection exists between the employment and the tort.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability imposes strict liability on an employer for the tort of an employee acting in the course of employment. The modern test for the relationship distinguishes employees from independent contractors using the multi-factor test from Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v. Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497. The course of employment includes wrongful acts authorised by the employer and unauthorised ways of performing authorised acts. Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 expanded liability for intentional torts where there is a sufficiently close connection.

Product Liability

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 implements the EU Product Liability Directive, imposing strict liability for defects where safety is not what persons are entitled to expect. Defences include the development risks defence and compliance with regulations.

Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

Private nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference with land, considering locality and duration. Public nuisance is a criminal offence actionable in tort by those suffering particular damage. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 imposes strict liability for the escape of dangerous things in non-natural land use, now confined to exceptional activities creating exceptional risk (Transco plc v. Stockport MBC [2003] UKHL 61).

Defamation

The Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm to reputation (s 1). For trading bodies, serious harm must be serious financial loss. Defences include truth (s 2), honest opinion (s 3), and publication on a matter of public interest (s 4). A single publication rule prevents repeated claims (s 8).

Privacy and Trespass

Misuse of private information requires a reasonable expectation of privacy balanced against freedom of expression (Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22). Trespass to land and goods are actionable per se; conversion justifies forced sale of goods. Economic torts include inducing breach of contract, conspiracy, and intimidation.

Defences

Contributory negligence (Law Reform Act 1945) reduces damages proportionally. Volenti non fit injuria bars recovery where the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk; it is narrowly construed. Illegality follows the structured approach of Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, balancing the prohibition’s purpose, proportionality, and the public interest.

Remedies

Damages aim to restore the claimant to the pre-tort position, categorised as special, general, and aggravated. Exemplary damages are available only for oppressive governmental conduct or calculated profit-seeking. Injunctions restrain continuing torts, particularly in nuisance.