For SQE1 tort law success in 30 days, you’ll need structured preparation focusing on negligence’s four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Master special categories like economic loss and psychiatric harm, then tackle occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability principles. Dedicate 40 hours weekly with a progressive approach—starting with duty of care, moving to causation, and finishing with complex applications. Practice multiple-choice questions daily to reinforce concepts. Your thorough understanding awaits beyond these fundamentals.
The Negligence Framework: Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages
When approaching negligence on the SQE1 exam, you’ll need to master the four essential elements that form its structural foundation. These negligence types require methodical analysis starting with duty of care—establish this using the Caparo test‘s foreseeability, proximity, and fairness principles.
The duty definitions vary across relationships, from professional-client to manufacturer-consumer contexts. The neighbor principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson remains foundational in determining when a duty of care exists.
Duty of care standards shift dynamically based on relationship contexts, requiring careful analysis in each negligence scenario.
Next, evaluate breach by comparing actions against the reasonable person standard. Then tackle causation using the “but for” test, demonstrating the harm wouldn’t have occurred without the breach.
Finally, assess damages—the actual, quantifiable harm suffered.
Don’t overlook potential defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk, which can greatly alter case outcomes even when all four elements are proven. Understanding these tort law principles is an essential part of developing the legal competencies required during your Qualifying Work Experience, which must be completed alongside your SQE preparation.
Special Categories of Negligence Claims: Economic Loss and Psychiatric Harm
You’ll need to master the strict rules governing pure economic loss claims, where recovery is generally barred unless exceptions like the Hedley Byrne principle apply.
For psychiatric harm claims, you must distinguish between primary victims (directly involved) and secondary victims (witnesses), with the latter facing much stricter recovery criteria including proximity and close ties of affection.
Understanding these special categories of negligence will help you maneuver through the policy considerations courts use to limit liability, including the prevention of “floodgate” litigation and concerns about indeterminate liability. Remember that when establishing causation in these complex cases, you’ll need to apply the “but for” test to determine if the harm would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s negligence.
Pure Economic Loss Restrictions
Despite its seemingly straightforward name, pure economic loss represents one of tort law‘s most complex and restricted areas of recovery.
You’ll need to clearly distinguish it from consequential economic loss, as courts treat them fundamentally differently in negligence claims.
Pure economic loss—financial detriment without physical damage or injury—generally isn’t recoverable unless exceptional circumstances exist. These exceptions include situations where the defendant assumed responsibility (as in Hedley Byrne) or where a special relationship creates sufficient proximity between parties. The landmark Murphy v Brentwood case established that costs of repairing defective buildings are classified as pure economic loss and thus not recoverable in tort.
You must recognize the policy rationale behind these restrictions: preventing unlimited liability to an indeterminate class for unknowable amounts.
The Spartan Steel case perfectly illustrates this principle, where lost profits from an interrupted electricity supply were deemed irrecoverable as pure economic loss, protecting defendants from the “floodgates” of potential claims.
Psychiatric Harm Recovery Tests
Similar to pure economic loss, psychiatric harm represents another special category in negligence that’s subject to considerable restrictions.
You’ll need to distinguish between primary victims (directly threatened/injured) and secondary victims (witnessing harm to others) for your SQE1 exam.
For successful claims, you must demonstrate a medically recognized condition—not mere distress or grief.
Expert psychiatric assessments are crucial, as courts won’t compensate ordinary emotional responses like anxiety or bereavement.
Secondary victims face stricter requirements: a close relationship with the primary victim, presence at the event or immediate aftermath, and injury resulting from sudden shock.
These limitations help courts manage potential claim volumes.
Causation challenges are particularly evident in medical negligence cases, where courts have increasingly narrowed recovery scope.
Remember that witnessing the event itself is usually required—learning about it later typically won’t suffice.
Cases like Leach v Chief Constable demonstrate the courts’ recognition of PTSD as an actionable psychiatric condition in tort law.
Primary vs. Secondary Victims
The distinction between primary and secondary victims represents one of tort law’s most critical frameworks for understanding psychiatric harm claims.
When studying for SQE1, you’ll need to master these classifications as they determine recovery paths.
Primary victimization occurs when you’re directly endangered—physically within the “zone of danger”—making recovery more straightforward. You needn’t prove psychiatric harm was foreseeable, only that physical harm was.
Secondary victimization involves witnessing something horrific happen to others while you remain physically safe. You’ll face stricter recovery requirements: proving proximity, a close relationship with the direct victim, and that psychiatric harm (not mere distress) was foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude.
Remember Page v Smith for primary victims—it’s the cornerstone case establishing that physical endangerment creates a duty covering all resultant harm. The case confirmed that the egg-shell personality rule applies to primary victims, meaning tortfeasors take their victims as they find them.
Occupiers’ Liability: Essential Differences Between Lawful Visitors and Trespassers
When approaching occupiers’ liability on the SQE1, you’ll need to clearly understand the fundamental distinction between lawful visitors and trespassers, as these categories determine the nature and extent of an occupier’s legal obligations.
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 governs your duties to lawful visitors, requiring you to take “reasonable care” to guarantee their safety. You’ll have occupancy duties regarding the state of your premises and must proactively address hazards.
In contrast, trespassers receive considerably reduced protection under the 1984 Act. You’re only liable to trespassers when you’re aware they might be present, the danger is known to you, and it’s reasonable to offer some protection. The landmark case of British Railways Board v Herrington established that occupiers must show common humanity toward trespassers, especially children.
This two-tier system balances property rights with trespasser protection while imposing higher standards for those you’ve invited onto your premises.
Vicarious Liability and Employment Relationships
You’ll need to grasp the employer control test to determine whether vicarious liability applies, as it helps distinguish between employees (where liability typically attaches) and independent contractors (where it generally doesn’t).
Understanding what constitutes “course of employment” is essential because employers are only liable for acts connected to authorized duties, not personal “frolics” entirely separate from work responsibilities. Recent case law like WM Morrison Supermarkets demonstrates the limits of vicarious liability when employees act independently and outside their employment scope.
The distinction between employees and independent contractors represents a frequent examination topic, so you should master the multi-factor approach courts use beyond contractual labels, including integration into the business, provision of equipment, and degree of financial risk. This concept appears frequently in MCQ format on SQE1 exams, where subtle legal nuances must be identified under time pressure.
Employer Control Test
Determining whether someone is an employee or independent contractor hinges critically on the “Employer Control Test,” which forms the backbone of vicarious liability assessments.
You’ll need to analyze whether the employer has the right to control how work is performed—not just the end result.
Courts examine several control mechanisms: Can the employer hire and fire? Do they set schedules and assign specific duties?
Is there ongoing employee supervision? These factors strengthen the employer-employee relationship in legal terms. Modern courts have adopted a multifactorial approach when examining the overall nature of the relationship rather than relying on a single determinative factor.
Course of Employment
The critical boundary between an employer’s liability and an employee’s personal responsibility lies in understanding the “course of employment” doctrine.
When you’re analyzing vicarious liability, you’ll need to identify whether the employee’s actions fell within employment course boundaries or ventured into personal territory.
Remember that authorized actions don’t just include perfectly executed tasks—they extend to negligently performed duties and even authorized tasks completed in unauthorized ways.
You’ll need to distinguish between minor deviations (still within employment) and substantial “frolics” (outside liability).
Watch for these key indicators: was the employee serving the employer’s interests? Were they on paid time? Did employer-sponsored activities have a business purpose?
These questions will help you determine if the tort occurred within the course of employment. Legal authorities have established that activities must benefit the employer directly, rather than serve personal interests, to qualify within employment course.
Independent Contractor Distinction
In your SQE1 preparation, focus on the critical two-stage test.
First, determine if the relationship is “akin to employment” rather than merely checking contractual status.
Second, assess whether imposing liability is warranted on the specific facts.
The vicarious liability evolution means contractors who are “effectively part and parcel” of the business may create liability for their principal, despite technical independence.
Remember: a genuine independent business operator (with separate premises, freedom to refuse work, and payment per task) remains outside vicarious liability’s reach.
As demonstrated in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants, Dr. Bates was considered a genuine independent contractor with his own insurance and separate business operations.
Defenses to Tort Claims: Practical Application Strategies
When facing SQE1 scenario questions involving tort defenses, you’ll need to develop systematic strategies for identifying and applying appropriate defenses to maximize your client’s position.
Start by carefully analyzing the facts to spot potential defense strategies like consent, contributory negligence, illegality, or volenti non fit injuria. Utilizing the visual diagrams from the module can significantly enhance your ability to identify and understand these defenses.
Remember that the practical implications of each defense vary greatly. Consent requires proof that your client received informed, voluntary agreement, while contributory negligence may only reduce damages proportionally.
For volenti, you’ll need to demonstrate the claimant fully understood and accepted the risk.
Always consider the burden of proof—it’s on your client as the defendant.
When applying defenses to scenarios, don’t just identify them; explain how they specifically operate within the unique facts presented and how they might affect the outcome. The SQE format requires you to apply legal principles without external resources, making mental resilience particularly important when tackling complex tort defense scenarios.
Multiple-Choice Question Techniques for Tort Scenarios
Successfully tackling multiple-choice questions about tort scenarios requires strategic thinking and methodical analysis. When faced with a tort question, immediately identify the core legal principle at stake—whether it’s foreseeability, duty of care, or damages assessment.
Start by eliminating obviously incorrect options, especially those containing absolute language. Remember that tort reform implications have made correct answers nuanced rather than extreme. Options suggesting automatic compensability without qualification are typically wrong.
For questions on psychological harm or pre-existing conditions, focus on the specific requirements for each claim type. Pay particular attention to the Bolam test in professional negligence scenarios.
When comparing plausible options, determine which most directly addresses the specific legal issue presented, keeping the reasonable person standard central to your analysis. In medical negligence cases, remember that the standard of care is typically defined as conduct accepted in an acceptable manner by a responsible body of practitioners, not merely what the majority practices. Consider using practice questions from the SRA to reinforce your understanding of tort principles under timed conditions.
30-DAY Study Schedule: Breaking Down Tort Law Into Manageable Components
Creating a structured daily study schedule helps you conquer tort law without feeling overwhelmed by its complexity.
A methodical study approach brings order to tort law’s intricate web of principles and doctrines.
Break your tort preparation into focused daily segments that build upon each other, allowing you to gradually master concepts from duty of care through to tort reform implications.
- Days 1-10: Focus on core principles and negligence elements, including the Caparo test and standard of care. Remember that courts prefer to use established categories for determining duty of care rather than applying the Caparo test to every situation.
- Days 11-20: Tackle causation, remoteness, and defenses while analyzing how liability insurance affects case outcomes
- Days 21-30: Practice applying principles to complex fact patterns and review evolving areas of tort law
You’ll find this approach transforms seemingly disconnected concepts into a cohesive framework.
Although a 30-day plan is intensive, it aligns with the understanding that SQE1 preparation requires dedicated study of approximately 40 hours per week to adequately cover the necessary material.
Final Thoughts
You’ve made it! In just 30 days, you’ve transformed from a tort law novice into an SQE1 contender. Remember, while other candidates are drowning in textbooks, you’re sailing through negligence frameworks with the confidence of a judge who’s never been overturned. Don’t panic now—you’re armed with more defenses than a paranoid occupier facing an army of trespassers. Trust your preparation; it’s almost legally negligent how ready you are.