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

Learning Objectives & Outcomes

• Introduce the Law of Tort with emphasis on negligence, standard of care, and strict liability.

• By the end of the session, you should be able to:

  • Explain and apply the third and fourth elements of negligence (Causation & Damages).

  • Distinguish between standard of care in ordinary, skilled, unskilled, and special-case contexts.

  • Recognise circumstances giving rise to strict liability and identify available defences.

Review: Four Ingredients of Negligence

• 1 Duty of Care

  • Where law recognises a duty; proximity of relationship.

• 2 Breach of Duty

  • “Reasonable‐man” objective test; foreseeability of risk.

• 3 Causation (focus of today)

• 4 Damage (focus of today)

Negligence Element 3: Causation

Core Ideas

• “Cause” = something that brings about an effect/result.

• In tort & criminal law, claimant must prove the negligent act caused the injury.

• Two-stage inquiry:

  1. Causation-in-fact – Did X actually cause Y? (“but-for” test).

  2. Causation-in-law / Remoteness – Is the loss too remote?

“But For” Test

• Injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach.

• Authority: Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952)

  • Factory worker fell during epileptic seizure from unguarded platform.

  • Court: absence of railings was causal – defendant liable.

• Practical formulation (Court of Appeal):

Activities / Illustrations

• Hospital misdiagnosis: Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)

  • Patient sent home; died 5\text{ h} later of arsenic poisoning.

  • Breach established, but death inevitable → hospital not liable (no factual causation).

Multiple Causes

• Claimant must show defendant’s act contributed to harm, not necessarily sole cause.

  • Concurrent causes: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956).

  • Several independent possibilities: Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988)

  • Excess oxygen one of 5 possible causes of infant blindness.

  • HoL: no liability – negligence not proved on the balance of probabilities (>50\%).

Loss of Chance

• Hotson v East Berkshire (1987)

  • Boy deprived of 25\% chance to avoid hip deformation.

  • HoL: “all-or-nothing” – 25\% < 50\%, so no recovery.

Remoteness (Causation-in-Law)

• Test = reasonable foreseeability (Wagon Mound No 1, 1961).

  • Damage must be of a type a reasonable person in D’s position would foresee.

• Supporting case: Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967).

Negligence Element 4: Damages

Loss Requirement

• Tort of negligence not actionable per se; claimant must prove loss.

• Protects interests in:

  • Personal well-being (physical/psychiatric injury)

  • Landed property

  • Personal chattels

  • Economic interests (with limits)

Pure Economic Loss

• Financial loss unconnected to physical damage.

• Generally non-recoverable (policy reasons).

• Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co (1973)

  • Recoverable: ruined metal (physical) + lost profit on those pieces (consequential).

  • Non-recoverable: profit from future melts during power outage (pure economic loss).

Defences to Negligence

• Volenti (non fit injuria) – complete defence; claimant knowingly accepts risk.

  • Morris v Murray (1990): passenger flew with drunk pilot; claim barred.

• Contributory Negligence – partial; damages reduced proportionally (Reform Act 1945).

  • Froom v Butcher (1976): no seat-belt → 25\% reduction.

  • Additional illustrations: Owens v Brimmell (1977); Sayers v Harlow UDC (1958);
    Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC (1972).

• Illegality & Recklessness also available where facts support.

Standard of Care (Special Cases)

• Baseline: conduct of the ordinary prudent person.

• Higher danger ⇒ higher care (gun vs walking stick metaphor).

• Professionals – judged against responsible body of peer opinion (“Bolam test”).

  • Bolam v Friern Hospital (1957): conflicting medical views on restraints ⇒ no liability.

• Unskilled / Learners – still held to ordinary standard; inexperience no excuse.

  • Nettleship v Weston (1971): learner driver liable (volenti rejected, damages 50\%).

• Children – compared to reasonable child of same age.

  • Mullin v Richards (1991): 15-year-old ruler fight unforeseeable injury ⇒ no breach.

• Sports Participants – ordinary standard; heightened for professionals.

Strict Liability

Concept

• Liability without proof of negligence; claimant only proves escape + damage.

Rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

1. Defendant brings onto land a dangerous thing.

2. Non-natural use of land.

3. Thing escapes.

4. Damage is a natural consequence of escape.

• Rylands liable for mine flooding even though contractors were negligent.

Construction / Engineering Examples

• Defective bridges; hazardous demolition; product defects (East River Steamship v Transamerica Delaval 1986).

• Pile-driving vibrations (Hoare v McAlpine 1923), explosive storage (Rainham Chemical Works 1921), sewerage leaks (Jones v Llanrwst UDC 1911).

• Vegetation hazards: Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878) – poisonous yew.

Children & Strict Liability

• BR Board v Herrington (1972): duty to trespassing child where fencing dilapidated.

• Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co (1945): garage attendant liable for selling petrol to child.

Defences to Strict Liability

• Consent of claimant.

• Default/contributory act of claimant.

• Act of a stranger.

• Statutory authority.

• Act of God (natural forces beyond control).

Other Torts (Beyond Negligence)

• Defamation – Libel (permanent), Slander (transient).

• False Imprisonment – unlawful restriction of movement.

• Assault – causing apprehension of immediate violence.

• Battery – intentional, unconsented contact.

• Trespass to Land/Property/Person – unlawful interference.

• Nuisance – unreasonable interference with use/enjoyment (public/private).

Recommended Reading & Research Tools

• Douglas Wood – Law and the Built Environment.

• Smith & Keenan – English Law, 17th ed.

• Databases: Lexis Library, Westlaw, Construction Information Service (CIS).

Recommended Case List (Exam-Level Authority)

• Causation / “But For” Line: Performance Cars v Abraham (1962); Baker v Willoughby (1970); Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982).

• Res Ipsa Loquitur (burden shift): Scott v St Katherine Docks (1865); Pearson v NW Gas Board (1968).

• Remoteness: Wagon Mound No 1 (1961); Wagon Mound No 2 (1966).

• Damages (Economic Loss): Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964); Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991).

• Strict Liability Expansion: Jones v Llanrwst UDC (1911); Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878).

These bullet-point notes capture every key doctrine, statutory reference, case illustration, and policy nuance discussed in the lecture, and should stand as a complete revision resource for Law of Tort – Part 2.