Cambridge A-Level Law: Law of Tort — Revision Notes (9084)

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the injured person can claim a remedy, usually damages. Cambridge International A Level Law (9084) tests Topic 4 on Paper 4 Law of Tort (1 hour 30 minutes, 75 marks): one 25-mark scenario from two in Section A and two 25-mark essays from three in Section B. Examiners want each element of the tort identified, supported by authority, applied to the facts and, in essays, evaluated.

These notes condense strands 4.1 to 4.4 of the 2026-2028 syllabus. For fuller explanations read the Law of tort study guide; to test yourself use the Law of tort practice questions.

Syllabus coverage

Syllabus ref	Content
4.1.1-4.1.5	Nature of liability; duty; breach; causation and remoteness; novel duty situations (economic loss, negligent misstatement, nervous shock)
4.2.1-4.2.4	Occupiers’ liability (1957 and 1984 Acts); private nuisance; Rylands v Fletcher; trespass to land
4.3.1-4.3.3	Assault; battery; false imprisonment
4.4.1-4.4.2	Defences; damages and injunctions

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
Actionable per se	Actionable without proof of damage (all trespass torts)
Vicarious liability	One person (usually an employer) liable for another’s tort committed in the course of employment
Joint liability	Two or more tortfeasors each liable for the whole damage; they may claim contribution from each other
Pure economic loss	Financial loss not consequent on physical damage to the claimant or their property
Primary victim	Claimant within the range of foreseeable physical harm
Secondary victim	Claimant who suffers psychiatric injury from witnessing harm to another
Special damages	Quantifiable losses to the date of trial
General damages	Non-pecuniary loss and future losses

How do you prove negligence? (4.1)

Duty (4.1.2) - neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932); Caparo v Dickman (1990): foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable. Established categories apply by precedent; Caparo is for novel cases (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, 2018). Policy can deny a duty (Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, 1989), for example to avoid defensive practice or floodgates.

Breach (4.1.3) - objective reasonable person (Vaughan v Menlove, 1837).

• Children: a reasonable child of the same age (Mullin v Richards, 1998).
• Learners: the competent standard (Nettleship v Weston, 1971).
• Professionals: Bolam (1957), with the opinion needing a logical basis (Bolitho, 1997).
• Risk factors: likelihood (Bolton v Stone, 1951); seriousness (Paris v Stepney BC, 1951); cost of precautions (Latimer v AEC, 1953); social value (Watt v Hertfordshire CC, 1954).

Causation and remoteness (4.1.4)

• But for: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC (1969).
• Multiple causes: Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988), claimant must prove which cause; material contribution (Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw, 1956).
• Intervening acts: a new act breaks the chain if it is unforeseeable or reckless (Knightley v Johns, 1982; Lamb v Camden LBC, 1981).
• Remoteness: type of damage reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound (No 1), 1961); precise manner need not be (Hughes v Lord Advocate, 1963); thin skull rule (Smith v Leech Brain, 1962).

Novel duty situations (4.1.5)

• Pure economic loss from negligent acts is generally not recoverable (Spartan Steel v Martin, 1973).
• Negligent misstatement: special relationship and reliance (Hedley Byrne v Heller, 1964); auditors owe no duty to investors at large (Caparo, 1990).
• Nervous shock: a recognised psychiatric illness is needed. Primary victims recover if physical injury was foreseeable (Page v Smith, 1996; Dulieu v White, 1901). Secondary victims must satisfy Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992): close tie of love and affection, proximity in time and space including the immediate aftermath (McLoughlin v O’Brian, 1983), perception with their own unaided senses. Rescuers and employees are not automatically primary victims (White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, 1999).
• Possible reform: the Law Commission (Liability for Psychiatric Illness, Law Com No 249, 1998) recommended removing the proximity and own-senses requirements for those with a close tie.

What are the torts affecting land? (4.2)

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 - lawful visitors

• Occupier = control of premises (Wheat v E Lacon, 1966). Common duty of care, s2(2).
• Children, s2(3)(a): occupier must expect children to be less careful; allurements (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor, 1922); very young children are primarily their parents’ responsibility (Phipps v Rochester Corporation, 1955).
• Trade or calling, s2(3)(b): specialists must guard against risks of their trade (Roles v Nathan, 1963).
• Independent contractors, s2(4)(b): occupier not liable if it acted reasonably in choosing and checking the contractor (Haseldine v Daw, 1941; contrast Woodward v Mayor of Hastings, 1945).
• Exclusion, s2(1), subject to UCTA 1977 and CRA 2015; warnings, s2(4)(a); volenti, s2(5).

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 - trespassers

• Duty arises under s1(3): occupier aware of the danger, knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is or may come into its vicinity, and the risk is one it may reasonably be expected to protect against. Covers personal injury only.
• Warnings, s1(5); volenti, s1(6) (Ratcliff v McConnell, 1999). No duty for obvious risks from the claimant’s own choice (Tomlinson v Congleton BC, 2003). Whether the 1984 duty can be excluded is not settled by the Act.

Private nuisance

• Unlawful, indirect interference with 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).
• Unreasonableness factors: locality (Sturges v Bridgman, 1879); duration (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks, 1996, short events can count); sensitivity (Robinson v Kilvert, 1889; Network Rail v Morris, 2004); malice (Christie v Davey, 1893; Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett, 1936).
• Defences: prescription after 20 years of actionable nuisance (failed in Sturges v Bridgman, because the noise was not a nuisance until the consulting room was built); statutory authority (Allen v Gulf Oil, 1981). Coming to the nuisance is not a defence (Coventry v Lawrence, 2014).

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) - strict liability for escape of a dangerous thing.

• Conditions: bringing on to land; likely to do mischief if it escapes; non-natural use (Rickards v Lothian, 1913); escape from land under the defendant’s control (Read v J Lyons, 1947); foreseeable type of damage (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather, 1994).
• Relationship: a sub-species of private nuisance, so the claimant needs an interest in land and personal injury is not covered (Transco v Stockport MBC, 2003).

Trespass to land - direct, intentional entry on land, remaining after permission ends, or placing objects on it. Intention to enter is enough even if mistaken about ownership (Basely v Clarkson, 1681); airspace (Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco, 1957, limited by Bernstein v Skyviews, 1978); continuing trespass while an object stays on the land (Holmes v Wilson, 1839).

What are the torts affecting the person? (4.3)

Tort	Elements	Key cases
Assault	Act causing reasonable apprehension of immediate unlawful force	Read v Coker (1853); words can negate (Tuberville v Savage, 1669); no immediacy (Thomas v NUM, 1985); silence (R v Ireland, 1998)
Battery	Direct, intentional application of force	Cole v Turner (1704); everyday contact excluded (Collins v Wilcock, 1984); hostility (Wilson v Pringle, 1987) doubted in F v West Berkshire HA (1990)
False imprisonment	Total restraint without lawful authority	Bird v Jones (1845); knowledge not needed (Meering v Grahame-White, 1920; Murray v Ministry of Defence, 1988); reasonable conditions (Robinson v Balmain New Ferry, 1910); detention beyond lawful term (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No 2), 2000)

Defences to battery: consent (medical consent to the broad nature of the act, Chatterton v Gerson, 1981); self-defence using reasonable force (Lane v Holloway, 1968); necessity (F v West Berkshire HA, 1990; Leigh v Gladstone, 1909).

Which general defences and remedies apply? (4.4)

Defences

• Volenti: full knowledge and free agreement (Smith v Baker, 1891). Employment: rarely succeeds, but did in ICI v Shatwell (1965). Medical treatment: consent to treatment. Sport: players accept ordinary risks but not reckless fouls (Condon v Basi, 1985); spectators (Wooldridge v Sumner, 1963).
• Contributory negligence: partial defence, Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s1(1); apportionment (Froom v Butcher, 1976; Jones v Livox Quarries, 1952).
• Inevitable accident (Stanley v Powell, 1891); Act of God (Nichols v Marsland, 1876); statutory authority (Allen v Gulf Oil, 1981); illegality (Pitts v Hunt, 1991; Gray v Thames Trains, 2009); necessity (Cope v Sharpe, 1912; Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, 1985).

Remedies

• Compensatory damages restore the claimant as far as money can (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal, 1880).
• Special vs general damages; non-compensatory damages: nominal, contemptuous, aggravated and exemplary (Rookes v Barnard, 1964).
• Personal injury: loss of earnings and care costs, pain, suffering and loss of amenity; future losses as a lump sum or periodical payments (Damages Act 1996, s2).
• Death: claims survive for the estate (Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934); dependants and a bereavement award (Fatal Accidents Act 1976).
• Injunctions: prohibitory, mandatory, interlocutory (American Cyanamid v Ethicon, 1975). Damages in lieu: Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting (1895), applied more flexibly in Coventry v Lawrence (2014); Miller v Jackson (1977); Kennaway v Thompson (1981).

Worked example: secondary victim

Rana sees on live television that her son’s school bus has crashed. She drives to the hospital two hours later and sees him injured. She develops post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. Recognised psychiatric illness: yes (PTSD).
2. Secondary victim: she was not in physical danger.
3. Close tie: parent and child, presumed.
4. Proximity: the hospital visit two hours later can be the immediate aftermath (McLoughlin v O’Brian), though Alcock held that identifying a body some hours later was not.
5. Own senses: live television alone is not enough (Alcock), but seeing her son at hospital may be. Conclusion: arguable, turning on the aftermath point.

Common mistakes and exam traps

• Using Caparo for every scenario instead of relying on established duty categories.
• Saying a trespasser claim under the 1984 Act covers damaged property - it covers injury only.
• Forgetting that Rylands needs an interest in land and does not cover personal injury (Transco).
• Treating contributory negligence as a complete defence.
• Saying false imprisonment needs the victim to know they were detained.

Frequently asked questions

Which torts does 9084 Paper 4 cover? Negligence (including economic loss and nervous shock), occupiers’ liability, private nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, trespass to land, assault, battery and false imprisonment, plus defences and remedies.

Is vicarious liability examined in depth? No. The 9084 syllabus lists vicarious liability “in outline only” under 4.1.1, alongside personal and joint liability.

What makes a good Paper 4 essay? A clear argument, accurate authority and evaluation of policy, such as floodgates in nervous shock or the balance between neighbours in nuisance, ending with a reasoned conclusion.

Official syllabus

Cambridge International AS & A Level Law (9084) syllabus for 2026, 2027 and 2028 - official syllabus PDF, Topic 4 Law of tort.