Top 5 Important Cases to Understand the Basics of Torts
Understanding tort law can be complex, but some landmark cases lay the foundation for the basic principles. Here are five essential tort cases every law student or legal enthusiast should know to grasp the fundamentals of tort law:
1. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (UK)
Topic: Negligence – Duty of Care
Why it's important:
This case established the modern concept of duty of care. It introduced the "neighbour principle" — you owe a duty not to harm those who you can reasonably foresee would be affected by your actions.
Key quote:
"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour." — Lord Atkin
2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) 248 N.Y. 339 (US)
Topic: Negligence – Foreseeability and Proximate Cause
Why it's important:
This American case limits negligence liability to foreseeable plaintiffs, shaping the idea of proximate cause — even if there is a breach, liability doesn't extend to unforeseeable consequences.
Key takeaway:
Duty is owed only to those within the zone of foreseeable risk.
3. Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 (UK)
Topic: Strict Liability
Why it's important:
Established a form of strict liability for hazardous activities — if you keep something likely to do mischief and it escapes, you're liable, even without negligence.
Principle:
"The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes... is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
4. Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197 (1955)
Topic: Intentional Torts – Battery
Why it's important:
Clarifies the intent requirement in intentional torts like battery — intent doesn't always mean malicious purpose; knowledge that harm is substantially certain to result can suffice.
Key issue:
Did a five-year-old know with substantial certainty that pulling the chair would cause harm?
5. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (UK)
Topic: Negligence – Three-Part Duty of Care Test
Why it's important:
Refines and builds upon Donoghue v Stevenson by establishing a three-part test for duty of care in negligence:
Foreseeability of damage
Proximity of relationship
Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Donoghue v Stevenson | Duty of care (neighbour principle) |
| Palsgraf v LIRR | Foreseeability and proximate cause |
| Rylands v Fletcher | Strict liability for escape of dangerous things |
| Garratt v Dailey | Intent in intentional torts (battery) |
| Caparo v Dickman | Modern three-part test for duty of care |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
1 comments