AQA A-Level Law: Tort Law Key Cases You Must Know
Tort law is one of the substantive options on the AQA A-Level Law specification, and like criminal law it lives or dies on accurate case authority. In both essay and scenario questions, examiners reward students who can cite the right case, state its principle in a sentence, and apply it to the facts in front of them. This guide presents the essential tort law cases you need to know, organised by topic, with the facts and legal principle for each.
Bookmark this page, print it out, or turn it into flashcards. However you learn best, make sure every one of these cases is at your fingertips before you walk into the exam.
For full interactive revision of tort law, see our course: AQA A-Level Law: Tort Law.
Duty of Care
The first element of negligence is establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. These cases trace the development from the original "neighbour principle" to the modern, incremental approach.
1. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
A woman drank ginger beer from an opaque bottle bought for her by a friend and found the decomposed remains of a snail inside. Principle: This landmark House of Lords decision established the "neighbour principle" — you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your "neighbour" (anyone so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation). It is the foundation of the modern law of negligence.
2. Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]
Investors relied on an audited company account that turned out to be inaccurate and suffered financial loss after a takeover. Principle: The House of Lords set out a three-stage test for the existence of a duty of care: (1) was the harm reasonably foreseeable, (2) was there sufficient proximity between the parties, and (3) is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? This refined and structured the earlier neighbour principle.
3. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018]
An elderly woman was knocked over and injured when police officers attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer in the street. Principle: The Supreme Court clarified that the three-stage Caparo test is not a universal test to be applied in every case. Where established precedent already recognises a duty (or refuses one), courts should reason by analogy from those authorities. Caparo's three stages are reserved for genuinely novel situations. This is the current approach to the duty of care.
Breach of Duty
Once a duty is established, the claimant must show the defendant fell below the standard of care expected — the standard of the "reasonable person." These cases set the standard and identify the risk factors the court weighs.
4. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]
A patient was injured during electroconvulsive therapy administered without muscle relaxants or restraints. Principle: A professional is not in breach if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of opinion within that profession (the "Bolam test"). This sets the standard of care for those professing a special skill.
5. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997]
A young child suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage after a doctor failed to attend and intubate. Principle: The Bolam test is qualified — the body of professional opinion relied upon must itself be logical, reasonable, and capable of withstanding analysis. A court is not bound to accept a professional practice that is not defensible.
6. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]
A diabetic mother of small stature was not warned of the risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal birth; her baby was born with serious disabilities. Principle: On the duty to disclose risks, doctors must take reasonable care to ensure a patient is aware of material risks and reasonable alternatives. A risk is "material" if a reasonable patient in that position would attach significance to it. This replaced a pure Bolam approach to consent and information.
7. Bolton v Stone [1951]
A cricket ball was hit out of the ground and struck a woman standing in a quiet road; such an event had happened only rarely in decades. Principle: The likelihood of harm is a key factor in deciding breach. Where the risk of injury is very small and remote, a reasonable defendant may not be required to guard against it.
8. Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]
An employer failed to provide goggles to a worker who was already blind in one eye; he was blinded in the other by a metal splinter. Principle: The seriousness of potential harm is a relevant factor in setting the standard of care. Where a particular claimant faces a greater risk of serious injury (here, total blindness), greater precautions are required.
Causation and Remoteness
The claimant must show the breach actually caused the damage, and that the damage is not too remote a consequence in law.
9. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]
A man came to hospital with arsenic poisoning, was negligently sent away without examination, and died — but he would have died anyway even with treatment. Principle: Factual causation is established using the "but for" test: but for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered the harm? Here the answer was no, so the breach did not cause the death, and the claim failed.
10. The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]
Oil negligently discharged into Sydney Harbour spread to a wharf and ignited, causing fire damage that was an unforeseeable consequence of the spillage. Principle: Damage is too remote unless it is of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. The defendant is not liable for unforeseeable types of harm, even where some damage from the breach was foreseeable.
Psychiatric Injury
The law treats claims for psychiatric harm (recognised mental illness, not mere distress) more cautiously than physical injury, distinguishing primary from secondary victims.
11. Page v Smith [1996]
A man involved in a car crash suffered no physical injury but the collision triggered the recurrence of a chronic fatigue condition. Principle: For a primary victim — someone directly involved and within the range of foreseeable physical injury — it is enough that personal injury of some kind was foreseeable. The defendant need not have foreseen psychiatric injury specifically.
12. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992]
Relatives of victims of the Hillsborough stadium disaster claimed for psychiatric injury suffered through witnessing events or their aftermath. Principle: A secondary victim must satisfy strict control mechanisms: a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim, proximity in time and space to the incident or its immediate aftermath, and perception of the event with their own unaided senses. These criteria limit who may recover for psychiatric harm.
Economic Loss
The law restricts recovery for "pure" economic loss — financial loss not flowing from physical damage to the claimant's own person or property.
13. Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964]
An advertising agency relied on a negligently given bank reference about a client's creditworthiness and lost money when the client went into liquidation. Principle: A duty of care can arise for negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss where there is a "special relationship" of reliance between the parties. (On the facts, an effective disclaimer meant no liability, but the principle was established.)
14. Spartan Steel and Alloys v Martin and Co [1973]
Contractors negligently cut a power cable, cutting electricity to a factory and damaging a melt in progress as well as causing lost profits on melts that could not be processed. Principle: A claimant can recover for property damage (the ruined melt) and the loss of profit directly consequent on it, but not for pure economic loss (lost profit on future melts unconnected to physical damage). This marks the line between consequential and pure economic loss.
Occupiers' Liability
Occupiers' liability is governed by two statutes: the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 (trespassers).
15. Wheat v E Lacon and Co [1966]
A guest at a public house fell on an unlit staircase and died; the question was who counted as the "occupier." Principle: There can be more than one occupier of premises at the same time. An occupier is anyone who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
16. Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
A young man dived into a shallow lake in a country park, ignoring prohibition signs, and was seriously injured. Principle: Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, an occupier does not owe a duty to protect trespassers against obvious risks arising from their own free choice to engage in a dangerous activity. Occupiers are not required to guard against people choosing to run obvious risks.
Rylands v Fletcher
This is a distinct tort of strict liability for the escape of dangerous things brought onto land.
17. Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
A reservoir built on the defendant's land flooded the claimant's mine through disused shafts when water escaped. Principle: A person who, for their own purposes, brings onto their land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, does so at their peril, and is liable for the natural consequences of its escape — provided the use of land was "non-natural." This is a tort of strict liability (fault need not be proved).
Vicarious Liability
An employer may be liable for torts committed by an employee. The modern law asks (1) whether the relationship is one capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, and (2) whether there is a sufficiently close connection between that relationship and the wrongdoing.
18. Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012]
Claims arose from abuse committed by members of a religious institute who taught at a school. Principle: The Supreme Court set out the modern "stage one" test, identifying the factors that make a relationship "akin to employment" and therefore capable of giving rise to vicarious liability even where there is no formal contract of employment.
19. Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016]
A prison catering manager was injured by the negligence of a prisoner working in the kitchen. Principle: Vicarious liability can extend beyond conventional employment. Where a person is integrated into the defendant's organisation and carries on activities for its benefit (here, a prisoner doing kitchen work), the relationship may be akin to employment for the first stage of the test.
20. Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]
A warden of a school boarding house sexually abused boys in his care. Principle: The "close connection" test for stage two — an employer is liable where the employee's wrongful conduct is so closely connected with their employment that it is fair and just to hold the employer liable. The warden's duties created the opportunity and connection.
21. Rose v Plenty [1976]
A milkman, contrary to his employer's express prohibition, allowed a young boy to help on his round and the boy was injured through the milkman's careless driving. Principle: An employer can be vicariously liable even where the employee acted against express instructions, provided the employee was still doing their job (delivering milk) in an unauthorised way, rather than doing something wholly outside the scope of employment.
22. WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants [2020]
A disgruntled employee leaked the personal payroll data of thousands of colleagues online to harm his employer. Principle: The Supreme Court held the employer was not vicariously liable. The "close connection" test was not met where the employee was pursuing a personal vendetta — acting on his own account, not in the course of furthering the employer's business — even though his job gave him access to the data.
Defences
Tort defences can reduce or extinguish liability. Contributory negligence reduces damages; consent (volenti) is a complete defence.
23. Froom v Butcher [1976]
A claimant injured in a car accident had not been wearing a seatbelt, which contributed to the severity of his injuries. Principle: Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages may be reduced to the extent the claimant's own carelessness contributed to their harm. The court set guideline reductions for failure to wear a seatbelt. Contributory negligence is a partial defence that reduces, but does not extinguish, liability.
How to Use These Cases in the Exam
Knowing the cases is only half the battle — you must also use them effectively in your exam answers.
In scenario (problem) questions, work through the elements of negligence in order and cite a case at each step. For example: "The first issue is whether D owed C a duty of care. As this is not a novel situation, the court reasons by analogy from established authority (Robinson v CC West Yorkshire [2018]); a road user clearly owes a duty to others nearby. The next issue is breach..."
In essay questions, use cases as evidence to support evaluation. For example: "The retreat from a rigid three-stage Caparo test in Robinson v CC West Yorkshire [2018] arguably restores coherence to the duty of care by privileging incremental development over a single abstract formula."
General tips for citing cases:
- Always give the case name and date. You do not need the full law-report citation.
- State the principle concisely — one sentence is usually enough.
- Apply the principle to the facts of the scenario. This is where the marks are.
- Where cases show the development of a principle (such as Caparo and Robinson), explain the relationship between them.
- Quality matters more than quantity. Cite the most relevant cases, not every case you know.
Revise Smarter with LearningBro
This list covers the cases that appear most frequently in AQA A-Level Law tort questions and mark schemes. If you can recall and apply every one of these cases, you will have a significant advantage.
For full interactive revision of tort law — with hundreds of practice questions, instant feedback, and topic-by-topic coverage — explore our course: AQA A-Level Law: Tort Law.