AQA A-Level Law: Tort — Revision Notes

Tort is section 3.3 of AQA A-level Law (7162) and carries 75 of the 100 marks on Paper 2 (2 hours), alongside 25 marks on the nature of law and the English legal system. You must know the rules of negligence, occupiers’ liability, nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher and vicarious liability, apply them to problem scenarios, and evaluate the policy behind them. AQA questions range from 1-mark multiple choice to extended problem and evaluation answers.

Use these notes with the Tort study guide and test yourself with the Tort practice questions.

Syllabus coverage (AQA 7162, section 3.3)

Specification content	What you must be able to do
The rules of tort law	Apply rules on liability and fault, defences and remedies
Theory of tort law	Evaluate Caparo policy factors, policy limits on economic loss and psychiatric injury, the objective standard, injunctions and the purpose of vicarious liability
Negligence: physical injury and property damage	Duty (neighbour principle, Caparo), breach (objective standard), factual and legal causation
Negligence: economic loss and psychiatric injury	Negligent acts and misstatements; primary and secondary victims
Occupiers’ liability	OLA 1957 visitors; OLA 1984 trespassers
Nuisance and escape of dangerous things	Private nuisance; Rylands v Fletcher
Vicarious liability	Nature and purpose; employment status; other areas
Defences	Contributory negligence; consent; defences to nuisance and Rylands
Remedies	Compensatory damages; mitigation; injunctions

How do you establish negligence for injury or property damage?

1. Duty of care

• Neighbour principle: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
• Caparo v Dickman (1990): (a) damage reasonably foreseeable, (b) proximity, (c) fair, just and reasonable.
• Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018): use established precedent first; Caparo only for genuinely new situations, developed incrementally.

2. Breach - the objective standard

• Reasonable person in the defendant’s position: Vaughan v Menlove (1837).
• Learner drivers judged as competent drivers (Nettleship v Weston, 1971); children as a reasonable child of that age (Mullin v Richards, 1998); professionals by a responsible body of opinion (Bolam, 1957), which must withstand logical analysis (Bolitho, 1997).
• Risk factors raise or lower the standard: probability (Bolton v Stone, 1951); seriousness (Paris v Stepney BC, 1951); cost and practicality (Latimer v AEC, 1953); social utility (Watt v Hertfordshire CC, 1954); common practice and state of knowledge (Roe v Minister of Health, 1954).

3. Damage

• Factual causation, but for: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1969).
• Intervening act may break the chain (Knightley v Johns, 1982).
• Legal causation/remoteness: foreseeable type of harm (The Wagon Mound (No 1), 1961); manner need not be foreseen (Hughes v Lord Advocate, 1963); take your victim as you find them (Smith v Leech Brain, 1962).

When is there liability for economic loss and psychiatric injury?

Pure economic loss

• Negligent acts: consequential loss is recoverable, pure economic loss is not (Spartan Steel v Martin, 1973 - damaged melt and its profit recoverable, lost profit during the power cut not).
• Negligent misstatements: Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) - special relationship, voluntary assumption of responsibility, reasonable reliance. Caparo (1990): auditors owed no duty to investors buying shares. Social occasions can count if the adviser knew the advice would be relied on (Chaudhry v Prabhakar, 1988).

Psychiatric injury (must be a recognised psychiatric illness)

• Primary victims: in the zone of physical danger; foreseeability of physical injury is enough (Page v Smith, 1996).
• Secondary victims - Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) control mechanisms:
  1. Close tie of love and affection (presumed for parents, children, spouses).
  2. Proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath (McLoughlin v O’Brian, 1983).
  3. Perception with own unaided senses (not via television).
  4. Shock from a sudden event; Walters v North Glamorgan NHS Trust (2002) accepted a 36-hour “event”.
• No special status for employees or rescuers (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, 1999).
• Medical negligence cases: relatives who later witness a death from an earlier undiagnosed condition cannot recover (Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Supreme Court, 2024).

What do the Occupiers’ Liability Acts require?

	OLA 1957 (visitors)	OLA 1984 (trespassers)
Who	Invitees and licensees (s1(2))	Persons other than visitors
Duty	Common duty of care to keep visitor reasonably safe (s2(2))	Duty only if s1(3) satisfied: aware of danger, reasonable grounds to believe trespasser in vicinity, risk reasonably expected to be guarded against
Damage	Injury and property	Personal injury only (s1(8))
Children	Be prepared for children to be less careful, s2(3)(a): Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922); Phipps v Rochester (1955)	Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust (2006): danger must be from the state of premises, not the child’s activity
Specialists	Guard against risks of their calling, s2(3)(b): Roles v Nathan (1963)	-
Contractors	s2(4)(b): Haseldine v Daw (1941); Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945)	-
Warnings / consent	s2(4)(a); s2(5)	s1(5); s1(6) (Ratcliff v McConnell, 1999; Tomlinson v Congleton BC, 2003)

Occupier = person with sufficient control (Wheat v E Lacon, 1966).

Private nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher

Private nuisance: unlawful, indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land.

• Claimant needs a proprietary interest (Hunter v Canary Wharf, 1997).
• Defendant: creator or occupier who adopts or continues it (Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan, 1940; Leakey v National Trust, 1980).
• Reasonableness: locality (Sturges v Bridgman, 1879); duration; abnormal sensitivity (Robinson v Kilvert, 1889; Network Rail v Morris, 2004); malice (Christie v Davey, 1893; Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, 1936). Overlooking can be a nuisance where use of land is exceptional (Fearn v Tate Gallery, 2023).

Rylands v Fletcher (1868): defendant brings on to land something likely to do mischief if it escapes; non-natural use (Rickards v Lothian, 1913; Transco v Stockport MBC, 2003, “extraordinary and unusual”); escape (Read v J Lyons, 1947); foreseeable type of damage (Cambridge Water, 1994).

How does vicarious liability work?

Purpose: a deep pocket and insurance; employers profit from employees’ work and control the risk; encourages careful selection and training.

Stage 1 - relationship.

• Control test (Yewens v Noakes, 1880); integration (Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans, 1952); economic reality/multiple test (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions, 1968).
• Relationship “akin to employment” (Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society, 2012; Cox v Ministry of Justice, 2016). Genuine independent contractors excluded (Various Claimants v Barclays Bank, 2020).
• Lent employees: the general employer usually remains liable (Mersey Docks v Coggins and Griffith, 1947).

Stage 2 - course of employment.

• Authorised act done in an unauthorised way: Limpus v London General Omnibus (1862); Century Insurance v NI Road Transport Board (1942); Rose v Plenty (1976).
• “Frolic of his own”: Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961); unauthorised driving by a conductor, Beard v London General Omnibus (1900).
• Close connection test for wrongful acts: Lister v Hesley Hall (2001); Mohamud v WM Morrison (2016); no liability where the employee pursues a personal vendetta (WM Morrison v Various Claimants, 2020).

Which defences and remedies apply?

Defences

• Contributory negligence: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; Froom v Butcher (1976) seat-belt reductions; Sayers v Harlow UDC (1957).
• Consent (volenti): knowledge plus free agreement (Smith v Baker, 1891; ICI v Shatwell, 1965; Morris v Murray, 1991); rescuers are not volunteers (Haynes v Harwood, 1935).
• Nuisance: prescription after 20 years; statutory authority (Allen v Gulf Oil, 1981). Coming to the nuisance and public benefit are not defences (Miller v Jackson, 1977; Coventry v Lawrence, 2014).
• Rylands: Act of God (Nichols v Marsland, 1876); act of a stranger (Rickards v Lothian, 1913); consent; claimant’s default; statutory authority.

Remedies

• Compensatory damages put the claimant in the position as if the tort had not occurred: special damages (losses to trial) and general damages (pain, suffering, loss of amenity, future loss).
• Property damage: cost of repair or diminution in value. Economic loss: the lost money itself.
• Mitigation: the claimant cannot recover loss they could reasonably have avoided.
• Injunctions: discretionary, prohibitory or mandatory; balancing the claimant’s rights against the defendant’s and the public’s interests (Kennaway v Thompson, 1981; Miller v Jackson, 1977); damages in lieu (Shelfer, 1895; Coventry v Lawrence, 2014).

Common mistakes and exam traps

• Using Caparo where duty is already established (road users, doctor-patient, employer-employee).
• Applying the Alcock mechanisms to a primary victim.
• Forgetting that the 1984 Act gives no claim for damaged property.
• In vicarious liability, skipping stage 1 and jumping straight to “course of employment”.
• In 30-mark problems, no conclusion: AQA mark schemes reward a reasoned conclusion on liability.

Frequently asked questions

Where is tort examined in AQA 7162? On Paper 2, a 2-hour paper of 100 marks: 75 marks on tort and 25 marks on the nature of law and the English legal system.

What does “theory of tort law” mean for AQA? It asks you to evaluate the policy behind the rules: why Caparo limits duty, why economic loss and psychiatric injury are restricted, how the objective standard is set, how injunctions balance interests and why vicarious liability exists.

Do I need recent Supreme Court cases? They strengthen evaluation. Robinson (2018), Barclays and Morrison (2020) and Paul (2024) show how the courts are refining duty and vicarious liability.

Official specification

AQA A-level Law (7162) specification, Version 1.1 (July 2026), section 3.3 Tort - aqa.org.uk.