TORT LAW LAW5001
QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
Tort Law Exam Cheat Sheet
Quick few notes:
• When dealing with a dead claimant, all claims must be made under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976,
and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (per Hoyle v Hampshire CC [2022]).
• Both of these Acts must be mentioned during your analysis, mentioning only one or the other will
not suffice and can cause you to lose marks.
ELEMENT #1: DUTY OF CARE
• Must be proved per Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].
• Is established via the Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]), voluntary
assumption of liability (Kent v Griffiths [2000]) or the incremental test (Michael v South Wales
Police [2015]).
- Caparo elements:
i. Reasonable foreseeability of harm by either the claimant or defendant.
ii. Proximity: geographical, temporal, relational and causal proximity (distinguished
in Australia’s Sutherland SC v Heyman (1985), approved in Stovin v Wise (1996)).
iii. Policies: is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant?
• Consider statutory preclusions: mother’s immunity (s1(1) Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability)
Act 1976); doctor’s failure-to-warn (Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [1999]).
• It is difficult to establish a duty of care on a pure omission (Stovin v Wise [1996]).
ELEMENT #2: BREACH
• Had the defendant met the objective standard of care (SOC) (Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987])?
- Younger children have a diminished SOC (Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955]).
- Those with a specialism have an increased SOC (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Committee (1957))
- Those unaware of their disability have a diminished SOC (Mansfield v Weetabix [1998]);
those aware of their disability do not have a suppressed SOC (C v Burcombe [2003]).
- Inexperience does not suppress one’s SOC owed (Nettleship v Weston [1971]).
QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
Tort Law Exam Cheat Sheet
Quick few notes:
• When dealing with a dead claimant, all claims must be made under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976,
and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (per Hoyle v Hampshire CC [2022]).
• Both of these Acts must be mentioned during your analysis, mentioning only one or the other will
not suffice and can cause you to lose marks.
ELEMENT #1: DUTY OF CARE
• Must be proved per Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].
• Is established via the Caparo test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]), voluntary
assumption of liability (Kent v Griffiths [2000]) or the incremental test (Michael v South Wales
Police [2015]).
- Caparo elements:
i. Reasonable foreseeability of harm by either the claimant or defendant.
ii. Proximity: geographical, temporal, relational and causal proximity (distinguished
in Australia’s Sutherland SC v Heyman (1985), approved in Stovin v Wise (1996)).
iii. Policies: is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant?
• Consider statutory preclusions: mother’s immunity (s1(1) Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability)
Act 1976); doctor’s failure-to-warn (Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [1999]).
• It is difficult to establish a duty of care on a pure omission (Stovin v Wise [1996]).
ELEMENT #2: BREACH
• Had the defendant met the objective standard of care (SOC) (Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987])?
- Younger children have a diminished SOC (Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955]).
- Those with a specialism have an increased SOC (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Committee (1957))
- Those unaware of their disability have a diminished SOC (Mansfield v Weetabix [1998]);
those aware of their disability do not have a suppressed SOC (C v Burcombe [2003]).
- Inexperience does not suppress one’s SOC owed (Nettleship v Weston [1971]).
