In English law, negligence is the central tort governing liability for carelessly causing harm. It provides a route to compensation where
a person (or public body) owes a duty of care, breaches that duty, and the breach causes foreseeable loss that is not too remote.
A negligence claim typically requires the claimant to prove: (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty measured against the standard of
the reasonable person (or the reasonable professional), (3) factual causation (the “but for” test), (4) legal causation and remoteness
(the damage must be a foreseeable kind of harm), and (5) that no complete defence defeats the claim.
Duty is often analysed through foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Breach focuses
on whether reasonable care was taken in the circumstances, balancing factors like likelihood and seriousness of harm and the practicality of
precautions. Causation and remoteness limit liability so defendants are not responsible for every downstream consequence of an act.
Negligence claims commonly arise from road traffic accidents, slips and trips in public places, negligent medical treatment, defective
advice or services by professionals, unsafe premises, and failures by occupiers or employers to manage foreseeable risks. Public authority
negligence can arise, but duty issues are often contentious because courts are cautious about imposing broad liability for operational and
policy decisions.
Remedies are usually compensatory damages aimed at putting the claimant, so far as money can, in the position they would have been in had the negligence not occurred. Heads of loss can include pain and suffering, loss of amenity, past and future earnings, care costs, medical
expenses, and property damage. Limitation, contributory negligence, and causation disputes often drive outcomes as much as breach.
Negligence is foundational for students and practitioners because it connects core ideas of responsibility, risk, and compensation across
personal injury, professional liability, occupiers’ liability, and public law-adjacent claims. Understanding the structure of duty, breach,
causation, and remoteness helps you spot issues quickly and evaluate prospects in both litigation and pre-action settlement.
You may also find our more detailed guide to negligence helpful.
See also: Duty of care; Breach of duty; Causation; Remoteness; Contributory negligence; Voluntary assumption of risk; Professional
negligence; Occupiers’ liability; Public authority liability; Vicarious liability.
Council tenants' three children died in a house fire when the mother could not open locked windows with removable keys to escape. The claimants sued alleging negligence in window design. The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that installing commonly-used lockable windows was not negligent, applying the Bolam test.
Employees in the knitting industry claimed compensation for noise-induced hearing loss from exposure to noise levels between 85-90dB(A) before 1990. The Supreme Court examined employer liability under common law negligence and the Factories Act 1961, determining that compliance with the 1972 Code of Practice provided a defence for average employers until the late 1980s.
A child taken into care at 10 months alleged the local authority negligently failed in its duty of care during his upbringing, causing psychiatric illness. The House of Lords allowed the appeal against strike out, holding that claims against local authorities for negligent exercise of child care duties are not automatically non-justiciable and should proceed to trial.
A dental house officer suffered a migraine attack during a career advice meeting. She claimed the interviewer abandoned her on the stairs without calling help. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal against summary judgment, holding that whether a duty of care existed required factual determination applying Caparo principles.
The Claimant alleged the Defendant, who managed their business operations, breached duties as a de facto director by extending unauthorised credit to G-Force, which subsequently went into administration causing a £481,727 loss. The Court found the Defendant was not a de facto director, had no binding instruction prohibiting credit extension, and was not negligent. Claim dismissed.
Water from defendants' fire-plug escaped during an exceptionally severe frost and flooded plaintiff's house. The court held the defendants not negligent as they had taken reasonable precautions against ordinary weather conditions and could not have foreseen the unprecedented frost. This case established the classic definition of negligence.
Duwayne Brooks, present during Stephen Lawrence's racist murder, claimed police owed him duties of care as victim and witness. The House of Lords held that police investigating crime owe no common law duty of care to victims or witnesses that would impede their crime-fighting functions, affirming the Hill principle.
Caparo purchased shares in Fidelity relying on audited accounts prepared by Touche Ross. The accounts were allegedly negligent, overstating profits. Caparo sued the auditors claiming they owed a duty of care. The House of Lords held auditors owe no duty to individual shareholders for investment decisions or to potential investors, only to shareholders collectively for proper corporate governance purposes.
Fire brigades attended fires at various premises. In the Hampshire case, a fire officer negligently turned off sprinklers, causing greater fire damage. The Court of Appeal held fire brigades owe no general duty of care when attending fires, but are liable if their positive acts create or increase danger.
A child under four years old escaped from a nursery school onto a busy street, causing a lorry driver to swerve and fatally crash while avoiding the child. The House of Lords held the local education authority liable for negligently failing to prevent the child's escape, establishing a duty of care owed to highway users.
Teenage vandals discharged a dry powder fire extinguisher throughout a medieval church, causing £240,000 in cleaning costs. The church sued the extinguisher supplier for failing to warn about the mess such discharge could cause. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the supplier not liable.
Mrs Cox, a prison catering manager, was injured when a prisoner negligently dropped a sack of rice on her back whilst working in the kitchen. The Supreme Court held the Ministry of Justice vicariously liable for the prisoner's negligence, extending vicarious liability principles to relationships beyond traditional employment where individuals are integrated into an organisation's operations.
Lessees of a flat discovered defective plaster caused by negligent sub-contractors employed by the main building contractor. The House of Lords held that the cost of repairing defective work which had not caused personal injury or damage to other property was pure economic loss and not recoverable in tort against the builder.
Mrs Donoghue found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer, bought by her friend. She suffered illness and successfully sued the manufacturer despite not having directly purchased the product herself. This case laid down the neighbour principle.
A high tide breached a wall protecting the respondents' farmland, causing flooding. The appellant Catchment Board had statutory power but no duty to repair. They attempted repairs inefficiently, taking 164 days instead of 14. The House of Lords held that having only a power, not a duty, the Board was not liable for damage caused by delay in exercising that power.
Farmers ordered cabbage seed but received seed that produced unmarketable plants without hearts due to the supplier's negligence. The seed merchants sought to rely on a limitation clause restricting liability to refunding the purchase price. The Court of Appeal held the clause did not protect against negligence and was unreasonable under statute.
Mrs Gorringe was severely injured when her car collided with a bus at a road crest. She sued the highway authority for failing to paint warning signs on the road. The House of Lords held that neither the statutory duty under section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 nor section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 created a private law duty of care to provide road warnings.
Dr Grant contracted severe dermatitis from wearing woollen underpants containing excess free sulphites due to negligent manufacture. The Privy Council held both the retailer liable for breach of implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act and the manufacturer liable in tort, extending the Donoghue v Stevenson principle to external products.
Mr Gray suffered PTSD from the Ladbroke Grove rail crash caused by the defendants' negligence. Under the effects of this condition, he killed a pedestrian and was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility. He claimed damages for loss of earnings during detention. The House of Lords held public policy precluded recovery for consequences of his own criminal act.
The mother of Jacqueline Hill, murdered by Peter Sutcliffe (the 'Yorkshire Ripper'), sued West Yorkshire Police for negligence in failing to apprehend him sooner. The House of Lords held that police owe no duty of care to individual members of the public in investigating crime, and public policy considerations supported immunity from such claims.
Mr Hollier's car was damaged by fire at the defendants' garage due to their negligence. The defendants sought to rely on an exclusion clause disclaiming responsibility for fire damage. The Court of Appeal held the clause was not incorporated by course of dealing and, even if it had been, did not effectively exclude liability for negligence.
Seven Borstal trainees escaped from Brownsea Island while officers slept, damaging the respondent's yacht during their escape. The House of Lords held that Borstal officers owed a duty of care to nearby property owners to prevent foreseeable damage by trainees, establishing liability where officers acted outside their instructions.
A woman severely injured in a motorcycle accident driven by her partner (later husband) claimed damages including the value of care he provided. The House of Lords held that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for gratuitous care services rendered by the tortfeasor himself, as such damages must be held on trust for the carer.
In the recent judgement Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UKSC/2024/0040), the Supreme Court held that the illegality defence can bar a negligence claim even where the claimant was found not guilty by reason of insanity for unlawful killings that sit at the centre of the loss claimed.
Workers negligently exposed to asbestos developed pleural plaques, which are asymptomatic fibrous changes in the lung lining. The House of Lords held that symptomless plaques alone, or combined with risk of future disease and anxiety, do not constitute actionable damage in negligence. Psychiatric illness from fear of future disease was also not recoverable without specific foreseeability.
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive
August 31, 2026
National Case Law Archive