Law of Tort – Part 2: Negligence, Standard of Care & Strict Liability

Thirty question-and-answer flashcards covering causation, damages, defences, standard of care, strict liability, and other key tort concepts from the lecture. Use simple words and make short flashcards

2. What does the “but for” test ask when determining causation?

It asks: Would the person\'s injury have happened if the defendant hadn't done what they did wrong? If the answer is no, then the defendant's action caused the injury.

3. Why was the employer liable in Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952)?

Because the worker would not have fallen to his death but for the absence of safety railings, satisfying the but-for test.

4. Why was the hospital not liable in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)?

The patient would have died from arsenic poisoning even with proper care, so the breach did not cause the death.

5. What is the difference between causation in fact and causation in law?

Causation in fact asks, “Did X actually cause Y?”; causation in law concerns remoteness—whether the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable.

6. Under Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956), how is liability treated when two concurrent causes contribute to harm?

The defendant is liable if their negligence materially contributed to the harm, even if not the sole cause.

7. What principle did the House of Lords affirm in Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988)?

Liability exists only if negligence, on the balance of probabilities, caused the loss; mere possibility among several causes is insufficient.

8. What is a “loss of chance” claim and what was decided in Hotson v East Berkshire (1987)?

It's when someone tries to claim money because they lost a chance for a better outcome. In the Hotson v East Berkshire (1987) case, the top court said they couldn't get compensation because a 25% chance of recovery wasn't enough to prove the injury was caused by the defendant's mistake (it needed to be more than 50% likely).

9. What remoteness test was set in The Wagon Mound (1961)?

Damage is recoverable only if it was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach.

10. Why is proof of loss essential in a negligence claim?

Negligence is not actionable per se; without legally recognised damage the claim is merely “negligence in the air.”

11. Name four interests protected by damages in negligence.

Physical well-being, landed property, personal property, and economic interests.

12. Define “pure economic loss.”

Financial loss not flowing from physical injury or property damage but from economic relationships; generally not recoverable in negligence.

13. In Spartan Steel v Martin & Co (1973), which losses were recoverable and which were not?

Recoverable: ruined metal (physical damage) and lost profit on those items (consequential economic loss). Not recoverable: profit on products that could not be made during the power cut (pure economic loss).

14. List four defences to a negligence claim.

Volenti (consent), contributory negligence, illegality, and reckless conduct by claimant.

15. How did volenti non fit injuria operate in Morris v Murray (1990)?

The injured passenger willingly flew with a drunk pilot, so consent was a complete defence and the claim failed.

16. What are the two key conditions for contributory negligence under the Reform Act 1945?

(1) The claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety; (2) That failure contributed to the damage.

17. How was contributory negligence applied in Froom v Butcher (1976)?

Damages were reduced by 25 % because the claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt exacerbated his injuries.

18. According to the Bolam test, what standard is expected of a professional?

They must act in accordance with a responsible body of opinion within their profession.

19. What was decided in Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957)?

Because respectable medical opinion differed on restraints during ECT, the doctor was not negligent when he followed one accepted practice.

20. What standard of care applies to an unskilled person, such as a learner driver?

The same standard as the ordinary prudent person—no lower allowance for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston 1971).

21. What did Nettleship v Weston (1971) say about inexperience as a defence?

Inexperience is no excuse; liability was established and damages were only reduced for contributory negligence.

22. How is the standard of care for children assessed, as shown in Mullin v Richards (1991)?

By reference to a reasonable child of the same age, not an adult; a 15-year-old would not have foreseen serious harm from ruler fencing.

23. What is strict liability in tort?

Liability imposed without proof of fault; the claimant need only show that the defendant’s act or omission caused the damage.

24. State the rule from Rylands v Fletcher (1868).

A person who brings onto land something likely to cause mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril and is liable for natural consequences of its escape.

25. List four requirements for liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

(1) Bringing onto land, (2) a non-natural use, (3) something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and (4) actual escape causing damage.

26. Give one construction-related example where strict liability can apply.

A contractor is strictly liable for damage caused by ultrahazardous activities such as urban blasting or demolition.

27. What defences are available to a strict liability claim?

Consent of the claimant, claimant’s default, act of a stranger, statutory authority, and act of God.

28. Name at least four other torts mentioned besides negligence and strict liability.

Defamation, false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespass, and nuisance.

29. How does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur assist a claimant?

It allows an inference of negligence when the thing causing harm was under the defendant’s control and the accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence.

30. What is the difference between libel and slander in defamation?

Libel is permanent defamatory publication (e.g., written), while slander is transient, usually spoken words.