Tort Law Revision for LLB UK Students
Cases, exam pitfalls and OSCOLA-ready notes for the UK undergraduate tort law syllabus.
Where Tort Law sits in the LLB
Tort Law sits at the heart of the LLB. It is the body of law that turns everyday accidents, a slip in a supermarket, a careless driver, a defective product, into binding civil obligations between strangers. For UK undergraduates, tort is usually the first module where you are asked to combine statutory regimes (the Occupiers' Liability Acts 1957 and 1984, the Consumer Protection Act 1987) with a dense body of common-law authority that begins, conventionally, with Donoghue v Stevenson and runs through the modern tests of Caparo and Robinson.
The examinable territory is broad: the duty of care in novel situations, breach, factual and legal causation, remoteness, the various forms of vicarious liability, nuisance (private and public), occupiers' liability, defamation, and the doctrines of trespass to the person. Most LLB cohorts will sit a problem question that demands you identify the relevant tort, structure the duty/breach/causation analysis using IRAC, and reach a defensible conclusion in around 45 minutes.
This page is a revision orientation rather than a substitute for your reading list. Use it to anchor your timetable, then drill the cases inside the ThinkLikeLaw assistant where you can interrogate every authority and stress-test your arguments.
Key cases you must be able to apply
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Foundational neighbour principle, manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate consumers.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Three-stage test for novel duty situations: foreseeability, proximity, fair-just-reasonable.
Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
Breach: low likelihood of harm may negate breach even where some risk exists.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington HMC [1969] 1 QB 428
'But for' test for factual causation in negligence.
The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388
Remoteness, defendant liable only for damage of a foreseeable kind.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Strict liability for the non-natural use of land that causes foreseeable damage on escape.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22
Close-connection test for vicarious liability in respect of employee misconduct.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4
Reaffirms incremental approach to novel duties; Caparo is not a universal test.
Exam pitfalls to avoid
- Treating Caparo as the test for every duty question, examiners reward students who apply Robinson's incremental method to novel facts.
- Confusing factual and legal causation. Use 'but for' for factual; then ask whether the damage was of a foreseeable kind.
- Forgetting to address the defendant's standard of care: a learner driver is held to the same standard as a competent driver (Nettleship v Weston).
- Mixing up the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (lawful visitors) and the 1984 Act (trespassers), the statutory duties differ.
- Citing Donoghue v Stevenson as the answer to every duty question instead of applying it.
How ThinkLikeLaw helps with Tort Law
- Open the ThinkLikeLaw assistant and paste a problem question, the IRAC-trained tutor walks you through duty, breach, causation and remoteness in order.
- Generate FSRS-backed flashcards from any authority so the leading cases are spaced into your memory rather than crammed.
- Run a tort essay through the OSCOLA citation check before submission to catch malformed footnotes.