← Back to blog

Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation and Remoteness for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Tort Law guide → View the full SQE1 Tort Law guide

17 Apr 2026

Negligence is the single most important tort for SQE1 and the foundation of the entire Tort Law module.

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 may 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 common SQE1 pitfall.

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

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A factory worker is exposed to harmful dust over a ten-year period while working for a manufacturing company. The manufacturing company failed to provide adequate respiratory protective equipment during this period. The factory worker is subsequently diagnosed with a serious lung disease that is known to be caused by prolonged exposure to the type of dust present in the factory. Medical evidence confirms that the same lung disease can also develop naturally without any occupational exposure, although this is significantly less common. The factory worker had smoked ten cigarettes a day for fifteen years before joining the manufacturing company. The worker's medical expert states that the occupational exposure materially increased the risk of the worker developing the disease. However, the expert cannot say on the balance of probabilities whether the disease was caused by the occupational exposure rather than by natural causes or the worker's smoking history. The manufacturing company accepts that it breached its duty of care by failing to provide respiratory equipment. The worker's smoking habit was known to the company's occupational health adviser. The factory had passed its most recent environmental audit three years before the worker's diagnosis. Another worker in the same factory was diagnosed with an unrelated respiratory condition around the same time. The factory worker brings a negligence claim against the manufacturing company.

Is the factory worker likely to establish causation against the manufacturing company?

Question 2

Scenario

A warehouse worker is employed by a logistics company to load and unload heavy goods from delivery vehicles. The logistics company provides the warehouse worker with a standard manual handling training course when he begins employment. Six months later, the company introduces a new type of industrial shelving unit that requires goods to be lifted to a height of three metres. The logistics company does not provide any additional training on how to safely load goods onto the new shelving units. The logistics company provides standard safety boots and high-visibility jackets to all warehouse staff but does not provide back-support belts. A risk assessment conducted by the company before the new shelving was installed identified the potential for back injuries from lifting goods to the higher shelves. The risk assessment recommended the provision of back-support belts and step-platforms, but neither was supplied. The warehouse worker suffers a serious back injury while attempting to lift a heavy box onto one of the new shelving units. The warehouse worker had asked his supervisor for a back-support belt two weeks before the injury and was told that one would be ordered. The warehouse had recently been repainted and new lighting installed. The warehouse worker regularly plays weekend football and had experienced occasional back stiffness after matches. The warehouse worker brings a negligence claim against the logistics company based on its primary duty as employer.

On which ground is the warehouse worker most likely to succeed in establishing a breach of the employer's primary duty of care?

Question 3

Scenario

A local council is responsible for maintaining the public footpaths in a town centre. A section of paving on a busy footpath becomes raised and uneven due to tree root growth beneath the surface. The council's maintenance team inspects the footpath during a routine quarterly inspection and records the uneven paving in their report. The report recommends that the section be repaired within four weeks as a matter of priority. No repair is carried out in the following six weeks because the council's maintenance budget has been fully allocated to other projects. A pedestrian walking along the footpath at midday trips on the raised paving and suffers a broken ankle. The pedestrian was looking at her mobile phone at the time of the fall. The footpath was well-lit and there were no obstructions other than the raised paving. The council had repaired a similar defect on a different footpath in the same town two months earlier. Several other pedestrians had passed over the same section of footpath without incident earlier that morning. The council has a dedicated health and safety officer responsible for prioritising maintenance work. The pedestrian brings a negligence claim against the council.

Is the council likely to owe a duty of care to the pedestrian?

Want to test your SQE1 baseline?

Try 100 free SQE1 questions across FLK1 and FLK2, with instant feedback, full explanations and no login required.

Try 100 free SQE1 questionsTry demoView pricing

Related Topics

Practise Negligence Duty Breach Causation And Remoteness Questions for SQE1

Not sure where you stand for SQE1? Take ActusPrep's free 100-question SQE1 diagnostic test across FLK1 and FLK2, then use your results to focus your revision.