Queen Mary University of London
(QMUL)
LAW5001 Tort Law (2nd Year LLB Law)
Problem Question Schemas per Topic
, Content
Negligence Action…………………………………………………………………………3
Vicarious Liability………………………….…………………………………………..…12
Employers’ Liability………………………….………………………………….……..…14
Public Authority Liability………………………….…………………………….……..…16
Occupiers’ Liability………………………….……………………………….….……..…18
Pure Psychiatric Injury………………………..…………………………….….….….…20
Pure Economic Injury………………………..…………………………….….…..…..…24
Defamation………………………..……………….……………………….….…..…..…26
Private Nuisance…………………..……………….……………………….….…...……29
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher…………………..……………….……………....……32
List of cases…………………..…………………………………….……………....……34
, NEGLIGENCE ACTION
1. D owed C a duty of care to avoid causing C the type of injury of which he complains.
2. D breached the duty of care.
3. (a) D’s breach caused the damage complained of by C.
(b) The damage complained of by C was not too remote (unforeseeable) at law to be
recoverable.
ELEMENT PRINCIPLES CASELAW
1. • *Employer → Employee
Recognised • *Doctor → patient
categories • Teacher → Pupil (especially young pupils)
of DOC • Road users → other road users / pedestrians /
passengers Robinson v CC of West
• Transport operators → passengers Yorkshire
• Custodian → prisoner
• Occupiers → lawful visitors (later in Semester B)
Carve-outs:
- Employers: not a DOC to avoid/minimise all
psychiatric illnesses.
- Doctors: DOC to perform medical duty carefully
but not to avoid/minimise all adverse
consequences flowing from a failed sterilization.
1. DUTY The Caparo test Caparo Industries
OF = if no established category exists: plc v Dickman [1990]
CARE
- Reasonable foreseeability: Is harm
reasonably foreseeable (guaranteed)? Hill v CC of West
- Was the V an individually foreseeable target or Yorkshire
part of small/identifiable group?
Particularly susceptible claimant Haley v London Electricity
- Not Egg-shell skull rule! Board [1965]
- Statistical evidence may help in proving
reasonable foreseeability!
Unborn claimant s. 1(1) Congenital
- Common law replaced by statute: need for an Disabilities (Civil Liability)
‘occurrence’ Act 1976
- Proximity: geographical/temporal/relational or
‘causal proximity’ /e/ C and D. Geary v JD
Wetherspoon plc [2011]
, - Policy factors: Was it just and reasonable to Watson v British Boxing
held the D liable? Board of Control
Ltd [2001]
Children (young)
- No DOC owed!
Carmarthenshire CC v
- Contributory negligence defence (8-12y.o.) Lewis [1955]
Police involved in criminal investigations
- Generally, no but some instances exception:
- Robinson: Police creates the danger. Robinson v CC of West
- Knightley: inspector created danger for officer Yorkshire Police [2018]
that was injured.
- Kirkham: when police do not pass on
necessary information.
- When police are carrying out core functions
(investigation etc.) x non-core functions
(procedure).
- Rush (NI): Risk of public safety is known and
they do nothing.
- Outrageous negligence: judges said so in
Robinson but uncertain.
The ‘Bad Samaritan’
- No DOC for pure omissions → protecting
individual liberty, not punishing Cattley v St John
Ambulance Brigade
heroes/helpers/bystanders.
(1988)
- Policy reasons:
o Individual liberty
o Why pick on me? Stovin v Wise [1996]
o Imposing expenditure
o Indeterminate liability
o Altruistic quality
o Causation difficulties
The Hedley Byrne test / Hedley Byrne & Co
The voluntary assumption of responsibility test Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
= the special relationship creates a duty if D assumes [1964]
responsibility for advice.
i. The assumption of responsibility: D
undertakes a task/provides advice knowing Kent v Griffiths –
ambulance by accepting
C will rely on it. 999 calls.
- BUT not police by taking a report! Michael v CC South
Wales
ii. The reciprocal reliance: C relied on D to
their detriment. Watson v British Boxing
Board
The incremental test
(QMUL)
LAW5001 Tort Law (2nd Year LLB Law)
Problem Question Schemas per Topic
, Content
Negligence Action…………………………………………………………………………3
Vicarious Liability………………………….…………………………………………..…12
Employers’ Liability………………………….………………………………….……..…14
Public Authority Liability………………………….…………………………….……..…16
Occupiers’ Liability………………………….……………………………….….……..…18
Pure Psychiatric Injury………………………..…………………………….….….….…20
Pure Economic Injury………………………..…………………………….….…..…..…24
Defamation………………………..……………….……………………….….…..…..…26
Private Nuisance…………………..……………….……………………….….…...……29
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher…………………..……………….……………....……32
List of cases…………………..…………………………………….……………....……34
, NEGLIGENCE ACTION
1. D owed C a duty of care to avoid causing C the type of injury of which he complains.
2. D breached the duty of care.
3. (a) D’s breach caused the damage complained of by C.
(b) The damage complained of by C was not too remote (unforeseeable) at law to be
recoverable.
ELEMENT PRINCIPLES CASELAW
1. • *Employer → Employee
Recognised • *Doctor → patient
categories • Teacher → Pupil (especially young pupils)
of DOC • Road users → other road users / pedestrians /
passengers Robinson v CC of West
• Transport operators → passengers Yorkshire
• Custodian → prisoner
• Occupiers → lawful visitors (later in Semester B)
Carve-outs:
- Employers: not a DOC to avoid/minimise all
psychiatric illnesses.
- Doctors: DOC to perform medical duty carefully
but not to avoid/minimise all adverse
consequences flowing from a failed sterilization.
1. DUTY The Caparo test Caparo Industries
OF = if no established category exists: plc v Dickman [1990]
CARE
- Reasonable foreseeability: Is harm
reasonably foreseeable (guaranteed)? Hill v CC of West
- Was the V an individually foreseeable target or Yorkshire
part of small/identifiable group?
Particularly susceptible claimant Haley v London Electricity
- Not Egg-shell skull rule! Board [1965]
- Statistical evidence may help in proving
reasonable foreseeability!
Unborn claimant s. 1(1) Congenital
- Common law replaced by statute: need for an Disabilities (Civil Liability)
‘occurrence’ Act 1976
- Proximity: geographical/temporal/relational or
‘causal proximity’ /e/ C and D. Geary v JD
Wetherspoon plc [2011]
, - Policy factors: Was it just and reasonable to Watson v British Boxing
held the D liable? Board of Control
Ltd [2001]
Children (young)
- No DOC owed!
Carmarthenshire CC v
- Contributory negligence defence (8-12y.o.) Lewis [1955]
Police involved in criminal investigations
- Generally, no but some instances exception:
- Robinson: Police creates the danger. Robinson v CC of West
- Knightley: inspector created danger for officer Yorkshire Police [2018]
that was injured.
- Kirkham: when police do not pass on
necessary information.
- When police are carrying out core functions
(investigation etc.) x non-core functions
(procedure).
- Rush (NI): Risk of public safety is known and
they do nothing.
- Outrageous negligence: judges said so in
Robinson but uncertain.
The ‘Bad Samaritan’
- No DOC for pure omissions → protecting
individual liberty, not punishing Cattley v St John
Ambulance Brigade
heroes/helpers/bystanders.
(1988)
- Policy reasons:
o Individual liberty
o Why pick on me? Stovin v Wise [1996]
o Imposing expenditure
o Indeterminate liability
o Altruistic quality
o Causation difficulties
The Hedley Byrne test / Hedley Byrne & Co
The voluntary assumption of responsibility test Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
= the special relationship creates a duty if D assumes [1964]
responsibility for advice.
i. The assumption of responsibility: D
undertakes a task/provides advice knowing Kent v Griffiths –
ambulance by accepting
C will rely on it. 999 calls.
- BUT not police by taking a report! Michael v CC South
Wales
ii. The reciprocal reliance: C relied on D to
their detriment. Watson v British Boxing
Board
The incremental test
