Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Remoteness

Tort Law > Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Remoteness

You are working through a negligence claim and you have to establish all four elements to succeed - if any one fails, your entire claim collapses. This is the most critical framework in SQE1 tort law, and examiners design questions specifically to test whether you can work through all four stages methodically.

What Is Negligence in SQE1?

Candidates frequently lose marks on SQE1 by jumping straight to breach without first establishing that a duty of care exists — the Caparo three-part test must be applied before any other analysis. Negligence is a civil wrong (tort) where the defendant fails to take reasonable care, causing foreseeable harm to the claimant. To succeed in a negligence claim, the claimant must establish four elements in sequence: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the claimant's damage (causation in fact and law); and (4) the damage was not too remote.

The tort exists to compensate those who suffer loss because of another's carelessness, while ensuring that liability is not extended unreasonably. The SQE1 Tort Law complete guide introduces the broader framework of tort law, within which negligence forms the foundation. Many other torts are understood by distinguishing them from negligence, making mastery of this topic essential. Understanding economic loss and negligent misstatement will help you see the exceptions to negligence liability.

Key Principles for SQE1

Duty of care - the Caparo test: The modern test derives from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. For novel situations, the claimant must establish: (1) was the harm reasonably foreseeable? (2) was there a relationship of sufficient proximity between the parties? (3) is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty? For established duty categories (e.g., road users, doctor-patient), the duty is recognised automatically.
Breach - the reasonable person standard: The defendant's conduct is measured against the standard of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co [1856]). Relevant factors include the likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone [1951]), the severity of potential harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951]), the cost and practicality of precautions (Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953]), and the social utility of the defendant's activity (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954]).
Causation in fact - the but-for test: The 'but for' test: but for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered the damage? (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]). Where the but-for test produces injustice, the court may apply the material contribution test (Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956]) or the material increase in risk approach (McGhee v National Coal Board [1973]; Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002]).
Causation in law - novus actus interveniens: The chain of causation must not be broken by a new intervening act. This can be an act of the claimant, a third party, or a natural event. The intervention must be unforeseeable and independent to break the chain.
Remoteness - the Wagon Mound test: The defendant is liable only for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach (The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]). The 'thin skull rule' (Smith v Leech Brain & Co [1962]) means the defendant must take the claimant as found - if the type of harm is foreseeable, the extent does not matter.
Defences: Contributory negligence (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945) reduces damages proportionally; volenti non fit injuria (consent) is a complete defence where the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk; illegality (ex turpi causa) may bar a claim where the claimant was engaged in illegal activity.

Exam tip

Work through the four elements of negligence sequentially—duty, breach, causation, and remoteness. Examiners frequently design distractors to make you skip duty and jump to breach, so always establish that the defendant owed a duty of care before moving forward. Similarly, distinguish carefully between causation and remoteness, as these are often conflated by candidates.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions on negligence typically present a scenario and ask you to identify the weakest element of the claim or the most likely defence. A common trap is jumping to breach without first establishing duty - always work through the elements in order. Questions frequently test the difference between the but-for test and the material contribution test, and between causation and remoteness. Watch for scenarios where a novus actus interveniens breaks the chain of causation. This is a classic SQE1 trap.

Quick Example Scenario: A doctor fails to diagnose a patient's condition. Evidence shows that even with a correct diagnosis, the patient had only a 25% chance of recovery. The patient's condition worsens. Can the patient succeed in negligence?

The key issue is causation. Applying the but-for test, if the patient would more likely than not (over 50%) have suffered the same outcome regardless of the doctor's breach, causation fails. A 25% chance of recovery means the patient cannot satisfy the but-for test on the balance of probabilities.

Common Mistakes Students Make

Skipping duty of care and jumping straight to breach - always establish duty first using Caparo for novel situations.
Confusing causation in fact (but-for test) with remoteness (foreseeability of the type of damage).
Forgetting the thin skull rule - if the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent even if unexpectedly severe.
Applying the material contribution test when the but-for test works perfectly well - the alternative tests are exceptions, not the default.

Quick Summary

Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and remoteness — all four must be established
Duty is tested via the Caparo three-part test: foreseeability, proximity, and fair/just/reasonable
Breach is assessed by the standard of the reasonable person (Bolam for professionals)
Causation requires the but-for test plus no novus actus interveniens breaking the chain
Remoteness is judged by the Wagon Mound test: was the type of damage reasonably foreseeable?
Defendants are liable for the full extent of damage even if unforeseeable (thin skull rule)

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Practise Negligence Duty Breach Causation And Remoteness Questions for SQE1

Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.

👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing

Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Remoteness for SQE1