FLK1 · Tort

Negligence — duty of care

SQE1 revision notes — the key rules, leading cases and common traps for this topic, in plain English and current to 2026.

TOR.01 Negligence — Duty of Care

Negligence has four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damage (not too remote). Duty asks: did the defendant owe this claimant a legal obligation to take care?

The core test

For novel/uncertain situations, apply the three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]:

Foreseeability of harm to the claimant;
Proximity of relationship between the parties;
Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

But note the modern approach in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] (Supreme Court): Caparo is not a universal test applied to every case. Where an established duty category exists (e.g. driver/road-user, doctor/patient, employer/employee, manufacturer/consumer), the court applies that precedent incrementally by analogy. The full three-stage test is reserved for genuinely novel situations. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] (the "neighbour principle") remains the foundation.

Particular problem areas

Omissions / pure failures to act: generally no duty to act or rescue. Exceptions: an assumed responsibility, a special relationship, control over a third party, or creating the source of danger.
Acts of third parties: generally no duty to prevent harm caused by another (Mitchell v Glasgow CC), subject to the same exception categories.
Public bodies / police: no general duty in the conduct of operational functions; liability usually requires a recognised exception (Robinson; Michael v CC South Wales).
Pure economic loss: generally not recoverable in the tort of negligence — except via assumption of responsibility for negligent statements/services under Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] (reliance must be reasonable).
Psychiatric harm: distinguish primary victims (in the zone of physical danger — only physical injury need be foreseeable, Page v Smith) from secondary victims (must satisfy the Alcock control mechanisms: close ties of love and affection, proximity in time and space to the event/immediate aftermath, perception by own unaided senses, and a recognised psychiatric illness).

Common traps

Do not recite Caparo mechanically — start by asking whether an established category applies (Robinson).
Keep duty separate from breach (the standard of care / Bolam) — examiners test confusion between the two.
"Foreseeability" features in duty, breach and remoteness — identify which stage is in issue.
A recognised psychiatric illness is required; ordinary grief or distress is not actionable.

Try a real SQE1 question

Straight from the bank. Answer it, then see the worked reasoning and the tutor — no signup to try.

A man is a front-seat passenger in a car driven by a friend. The friend drives negligently and collides with another vehicle. The man was not wearing his seatbelt. Medical evidence establishes that had he worn the seatbelt his injuries would have been substantially less severe, though he would still have suffered some injury from the impact. The man sues his friend in negligence. Liability for the collision is admitted. The defendant argues that the man's damages should be reduced because of his failure to wear a seatbelt.

Before you book a £1,934 exam

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them — and 59% failed in July 2025. See where you stand across all of them, free.

✓An AI tutor on every question that already knows the answer — the part nothing else has
✓5 full mock papers at real exam pace, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
✓The whole 2,000+ bank, verified and source-cited to the law, all 137 areas
✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

Start my free diagnostic — one tap →

Free. No card. 25 questions, about 15 minutes. Full SQE1 courses run £1,500–£4,000 — this starts at £0.