PGDL STUDY GUIDE
TORT
LAW
Understand it. Apply it. Ace it.
Clear notes. Key cases. Exam focused.
Everything you need to succeed.
CONTENTS
01 Negligence: Duty of Care 2
02 Negligence: Breach of Duty 3
03 Causation & Remoteness 4
04 Defences to Negligence 5
05 Damages & Remedies 6
06 Psychiatric Harm & Economic Loss 7
07 Employers' & Vicarious Liability 8
08 Occupiers' Liability 9
09 Product Liability 10
10 Private Nuisance 11
11 Rylands v Fletcher, Public Nuisance & Trespass 12
★ 30-Second Full Revision 13
You've got this! ♡
, 01 NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE
Negligence = a breach of a legal duty of care, owed to a claimant, that causes harm. 3 elements: (1) duty owed, (2)
breach, (3) breach caused damage.
ESTABLISHED DUTY STATIONS
Doctor–patient, employer–employee, road users, occupier–visitor, manufacturer–consumer, and rescuer of a foreseeably
endangered person.
NOVEL DUTY — THE CAPARO TEST [1990]
(1) Reasonable foreseeability of harm to the claimant (Bourhill v Young). (2) Sufficient proximity of relationship. (3) Fair, just
& reasonable to impose a duty (Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine). Descends from the neighbour principle in Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932].
NO DUTY FOR OMISSIONS
No general duty to prevent harm you didn't cause (Stovin v Wise). Exception: a special relationship of control/assumed
responsibility (Home Office v Dorset Yacht; Barrett v MoD).
PUBLIC BODIES — POLICY LIMITS
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire — police owe no duty to individuals, only the public at large, unless responsibility is
assumed (Kirkham) or a third party is directly harmed (Robinson v CC West Yorkshire [2018]). Fire/coastguard: duty not to make
things worse only. Ambulance (Kent v Griffiths) & education authorities (Phelps v Hillingdon) owe closer duties as service
providers.
EXAM TIP
Check an established category FIRST — only run Caparo for genuinely novel fact patterns.
TORT
LAW
Understand it. Apply it. Ace it.
Clear notes. Key cases. Exam focused.
Everything you need to succeed.
CONTENTS
01 Negligence: Duty of Care 2
02 Negligence: Breach of Duty 3
03 Causation & Remoteness 4
04 Defences to Negligence 5
05 Damages & Remedies 6
06 Psychiatric Harm & Economic Loss 7
07 Employers' & Vicarious Liability 8
08 Occupiers' Liability 9
09 Product Liability 10
10 Private Nuisance 11
11 Rylands v Fletcher, Public Nuisance & Trespass 12
★ 30-Second Full Revision 13
You've got this! ♡
, 01 NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE
Negligence = a breach of a legal duty of care, owed to a claimant, that causes harm. 3 elements: (1) duty owed, (2)
breach, (3) breach caused damage.
ESTABLISHED DUTY STATIONS
Doctor–patient, employer–employee, road users, occupier–visitor, manufacturer–consumer, and rescuer of a foreseeably
endangered person.
NOVEL DUTY — THE CAPARO TEST [1990]
(1) Reasonable foreseeability of harm to the claimant (Bourhill v Young). (2) Sufficient proximity of relationship. (3) Fair, just
& reasonable to impose a duty (Marc Rich v Bishop Rock Marine). Descends from the neighbour principle in Donoghue v
Stevenson [1932].
NO DUTY FOR OMISSIONS
No general duty to prevent harm you didn't cause (Stovin v Wise). Exception: a special relationship of control/assumed
responsibility (Home Office v Dorset Yacht; Barrett v MoD).
PUBLIC BODIES — POLICY LIMITS
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire — police owe no duty to individuals, only the public at large, unless responsibility is
assumed (Kirkham) or a third party is directly harmed (Robinson v CC West Yorkshire [2018]). Fire/coastguard: duty not to make
things worse only. Ambulance (Kent v Griffiths) & education authorities (Phelps v Hillingdon) owe closer duties as service
providers.
EXAM TIP
Check an established category FIRST — only run Caparo for genuinely novel fact patterns.
