Law of Torts (Negligence, Nuisance, Strict Liability)

Syllabus Unit: Legal Reasoning

Why it matters

Chapter overview

Tort law governs civil wrongs that cause harm outside a contract — CLAT tests it through fact-pattern passages where you must spot which tort applies, apply the exact legal test (duty-breach-causation-damage for negligence, the Rylands v Fletcher elements for strict liability) and pick the correct defence or remedy. This unit builds the four pillars: negligence, nuisance/trespass, strict/absolute liability, and the defences and remedies common to all torts.

Common Law Admission Test Syllabus Legal Reasoning 25% weightage

Live Animation1 / 4

1Duty of CareOwed under neighbour principle

2BreachFalls below reasonable man

3CausationBut-for test satisfied

4DamageForeseeable, not remote

1Negligence & the Standard of Care

Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care, resulting in damage — CLAT fact patterns test each of its four elements separately.

Learning Objectives

State the four elements a claimant must prove to succeed in a negligence action.
Apply Lord Atkin's neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson to identify when a duty of care arises.
Explain the 'reasonable man' standard from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. to judge breach.
Distinguish factual causation (but-for test) from legal causation (remoteness of damage, Wagon Mound).

Key Terms

Duty of CareA legal obligation to avoid acts/omissions reasonably foreseeable to injure a person to whom it is owed, per the neighbour principle.

Standard of CareThe conduct expected of a 'reasonable, prudent person' in the defendant's position — falling below it is a breach.

But-For TestCausation test asking whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's breach; if yes, breach did not cause it.

Remoteness of DamageA defendant is liable only for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable, per Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound).

**Negligence** is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant. It is the single most tested tort at CLAT because it resolves into a clean, sequential four-part test that maps perfectly onto passage-based fact patterns.

The four elements, in order

Duty of care — did the defendant owe the claimant a legal duty? Established by Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): a manufacturer owes a duty to the ultimate consumer of its product.
Breach of duty — did the defendant fall below the standard of the 'reasonable man'? Set out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856).
Causation — did the breach actually cause the harm? Tested by the 'but-for' test.
Damage — did the claimant suffer damage that was not too remote, per the foreseeability test in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound, 1961).

Duty of Care → Breach of Standard → Causation (but-for) → Damage (not too remote)

Exam TipCLAT passages often give a fact pattern satisfying three of the four elements and ask which one is missing — always check all four before concluding negligence is made out.

Special doctrines

**Res ipsa loquitur** ('the thing speaks for itself') shifts the burden of proof to the defendant when an accident could not ordinarily happen without negligence, and the instrumentality was under the defendant's control (e.g., a surgical instrument left inside a patient).

Common MistakeCommon trap: professional negligence (doctors, lawyers) is judged by the standard of an ordinarily competent member of that profession (the Bolam test), not by a layperson's standard.