In simple terms
A friendly intro before the formal notes — no formulas yet.
Nature of liability in negligence
9084 Tort — negligence as civil wrong, fault principle, and three-part test overview.
- 1
Negligence is a tort, meaning a civil wrong, not a crime.
- 2
The primary aim is to compensate the claimant for loss or damage.
- 3
The legal action is brought by the claimant against the defendant.
- 4
The standard remedy sought is damages (financial compensation).
What this topic covers
The official Cambridge syllabus points this lesson works through.
- 4.1.1.1
Personal liability, vicarious liability (in outline only) and joint liability
Explore the concept
Use the live diagram and synced steps — play it or tap a step card to walk through.
At a glance — side by side
Compare key properties side by side — ideal for exam contrasts.
Comparison of Fault-Based and Strict Liability in Tort
| Feature | Negligence (Fault-Based Liability) | Strict Liability (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher) |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of Liability | Based on the defendant's 'fault' - their failure to meet the required standard of care. | Liability can be imposed regardless of whether the defendant was at fault or took reasonable care. |
| Burden on Claimant | Claimant must prove that the defendant owed a duty, breached it, and this caused damage. | Claimant only needs to prove the defendant performed a certain act which caused damage (e.g., brought something dangerous onto land which escaped). |
| Focus of the Court | Examines the defendant's conduct and state of mind (objectively). | Examines the nature of the activity and the harm caused, not the defendant's conduct. |
| Justification | It is fair to make someone pay for harm they carelessly caused. | The person who engages in an exceptionally hazardous activity for their own benefit should bear the risk of any harm it causes. |
Basis of Liability
Negligence (Fault-Based Liability)
Strict Liability (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher)
Burden on Claimant
Negligence (Fault-Based Liability)
Strict Liability (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher)
Focus of the Court
Negligence (Fault-Based Liability)
Strict Liability (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher)
Justification
Negligence (Fault-Based Liability)
Strict Liability (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher)
Full topic notes
Formal explanation with the rigour you need for the exam.
Introduction to Negligence as a Civil Wrong
Negligence is a specific tort, which is a type of civil wrong committed by one individual against another, giving the wronged party the right to sue for a remedy. Unlike criminal law, which aims to punish offenders on behalf of the state, the primary objective of tort law is compensation. The claimant (the person who has suffered loss) brings an action against the defendant (the person alleged to have caused the loss) to seek a remedy, most commonly in the form of damages (monetary compensation). Negligence is the most significant and frequently litigated modern tort, covering a vast range of situations from road traffic accidents and medical mistakes to defective products. It provides a legal mechanism for individuals to obtain redress for harm caused by another's carelessness.
Negligence is a tort, meaning a civil wrong, not a crime.
The primary aim is to compensate the claimant for loss or damage.
The legal action is brought by the claimant against the defendant.
The standard remedy sought is damages (financial compensation).
The Centrality of the Fault Principle
Liability in negligence is predominantly based on the 'fault principle'. This means a defendant is only held liable if they are considered to be at fault, or 'blameworthy', for the harm caused. Fault is established by showing that the defendant's conduct fell below the objective standard of care expected of a 'reasonable person' in their circumstances. It is not about proving the defendant intended to cause harm, but rather that they failed to exercise the level of care and skill that the law deems appropriate. This principle justifies imposing an obligation to compensate; the defendant is liable because they failed to act as they should have. This contrasts with strict liability torts, where liability can be imposed even without proof of fault.
Liability requires proof of 'fault' on the part of the defendant.
Fault is measured objectively against the standard of the 'reasonable person'.
It is not necessary to prove the defendant intended the harm, only that they were careless.
The fault principle provides the moral and legal justification for imposing a duty to compensate.
The 'Neighbour Principle' and the Genesis of a General Duty
Historically, a claimant could only sue in negligence if their situation fell into a pre-existing category where a duty was recognised (e.g., doctor-patient). The landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] revolutionised this by establishing a general principle for determining the existence of a duty of care. Lord Atkin's famous 'neighbour principle' proposed that a duty is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by one's acts that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected. This shifted the focus from rigid categories to a broader, more flexible principle based on reasonable foreseeability of harm, laying the groundwork for the modern law of negligence.
Established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].
Lord Atkin's 'neighbour principle' created a general test for duty of care.
A 'neighbour' is anyone who is closely and directly affected by your actions.
The core of the principle is reasonable foreseeability of harm.
Overview of the Modern Three-Part Test for Negligence
While the neighbour principle remains influential, the modern approach for establishing a duty of care in novel situations is the three-part test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. To prove negligence, a claimant must first establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. Secondly, they must prove this duty was breached. Thirdly, they must prove the breach caused damage that was not too remote. The Caparo test specifically addresses the first element (duty of care) by asking three questions: 1) Was the harm reasonably foreseeable? 2) Is there a relationship of proximity between the claimant and defendant? 3) Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? This structured, incremental approach allows courts to manage the scope of liability.
The complete tort of negligence requires proof of three elements: Duty, Breach, and Causation of damage.
The modern test for establishing a duty in new cases comes from Caparo v Dickman.
The Caparo test has three stages: Foreseeability, Proximity, and whether it is Fair, Just and Reasonable.
This test provides a framework for courts to decide whether to extend liability into new areas.
The Compensatory Aim: Restitutio in Integrum
The primary remedy in a successful negligence claim is an award of damages. The guiding principle for assessing these damages is restitutio in integrum, a Latin phrase meaning 'restoration to the original condition'. The goal is to award a sum of money that will, as far as possible, put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not been committed. This is a compensatory, not a punitive, aim. The damages are broadly divided into two categories:
Special Damages: These cover quantifiable financial losses incurred by the claimant from the date of the tort up to the date of the trial. They must be specifically pleaded and proved. Examples include lost earnings, medical expenses, and repair costs.
General Damages: These cover losses that are not easily quantifiable in precise monetary terms. They include compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA), as well as future losses like loss of future earnings or the cost of future care.
In an exam, clearly distinguish between the three essential elements of the tort of negligence (Duty, Breach, Causation) and the three-part test from Caparo which is used to establish the first of those elements (Duty of Care) in novel situations. Do not confuse the two sets of three.
Worked examples
See the formulas applied — reveal one step at a time, like the exam.
After drinking a bottle of ginger beer at a café, May discovers a decomposed snail at the bottom and suffers gastroenteritis and psychiatric shock. She wants to sue the manufacturer. Explain the nature of her claim in negligence and the legal framework the court would apply. [12 marks]
- 1
Duty of care — manufacturer owes consumers a duty (Donoghue; see 4.1.2).
An accountant, earning £600 per week, is hit by a speeding driver and suffers a broken arm. He is unable to work for 10 weeks. His laptop, valued at £1,200, was destroyed in the accident. He also paid £800 for private physiotherapy sessions not covered by the NHS. Assuming the driver is found liable in negligence, calculate the claimant's special damages.
- 1
1. Principle: The claimant is entitled to damages based on the principle of restitutio in integrum, aiming to restore him to his pre-tort financial position. We will calculate the special damages, which are the quantifiable financial losses up to the date of trial.
How it all connects
The big idea sits in the middle — tap a linked idea to explore the link.
Tap a linked idea to see how it connects back to the main topic — that connection is what examiners reward.
Glossary
Try to recall each definition before you reveal it.
Quick check
Answer in your head first — then tap to check. No pressure.
Revision flashcards
Flip the card. Test yourself before the exam.
What is negligence in tort?
A civil wrong where D owes a duty of care, breaches it, and causes foreseeable damage to C — fault-based liability.
Key takeaways
Review these before you close the topic — retrieval beats re-reading.
- ✓
Negligence is a tort, meaning a civil wrong, not a crime.
- ✓
The primary aim is to compensate the claimant for loss or damage.
- ✓
The legal action is brought by the claimant against the defendant.
- ✓
The standard remedy sought is damages (financial compensation).
Practice — then mark it
The whole point: a real Cambridge question, marked mark-by-mark.
Mark a negligence nature question
Mark a negligence nature question
Extra simulations & links
PhET, GeoGebra and other curated tools — open in a new tab.
Frequently asked
Checkpoint
One marked question is worth ten re-reads — close the loop before you move on.
Reading it isn’t knowing it — prove it.
Before you move on: do Mark a negligence nature question on paper, snap a photo, and get examiner-style feedback on exactly where you win and lose marks.