OCR A-Level Law H418
Civil Courts and Other Forms of Dispute Resolution
Criminal Courts and Lay People
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice
Rules and Theory of Criminal Law
General Elements of Criminal Liability
Fatal Offences Against the Person
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
Offences Against Property
Mental Capacity Defences
Preliminary Offences
Evaluation in Criminal Law
Parliamentary Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
European Union Law
Rules and Theory of Tort
Liability in Negligence
Occupiers’ Liability
Torts Connected to Land
Vicarious Liability
Defences
Remedies in Tort
Evaluation in Tort
Introduction to the Nature of Law
Law and Society
Rules and Theory of Human RightsHuman rights
Protection of the Individual’s Human Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Key Provisions of the European Convention on Human RightsHuman rights
Human Rights and English LawHuman rights
Enforcement of Human Rights LawHuman rights
Evaluation in Human RightsHuman rights
Rules and Theory of ContractContract
FormationContract
Vitiating FactorsContract
Remedies in ContractContract
Evaluation in ContractContract
Evaluation in Tort
Evaluating negligence and occupiers' liability
- 6 things to know
- Component 2
Overview
Recall questions on the compensation culture and floodgates concerns, the but for test, remoteness and the objective standard of breach, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, and whether occupiers' liability to trespassers strikes a fair balance.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
How well does occupiers' liability protect those who are injured?
What is the floodgates argument?
What is meant by the compensation culture?
What would a no-fault compensation scheme change?
How can occupiers' liability be evaluated in terms of balance?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What is a key criticism of negligence relating to 'compensation culture'?
Model answer
That fear of being sued encourages defensive practices and drives up insurance costs, though studies suggest the scale of a genuine compensation culture is often exaggerated; the Compensation Act 2006 responded to these concerns.
- 2
Why can the 'but for' test be seen as harsh or limiting?
Model answer
Because a clearly negligent defendant can escape liability where the claimant would have suffered the harm anyway, as in Barnett, which some see as unjust to victims.
- 3
How does the remoteness rule balance interests in negligence?
Model answer
By limiting liability to reasonably foreseeable types of harm (The Wagon Mound), it protects defendants from unlimited liability but can leave some genuinely caused losses uncompensated.
- 4
What 'floodgates' concern arises in negligence?
Model answer
That recognising duties too widely — especially for economic loss or psychiatric harm — could open the floodgates to large numbers of claims, which is why courts restrict these categories.
- 5
How does Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire improve the law on duty of care?
Model answer
By confirming that established precedent governs recognised situations, it makes duty decisions more certain and predictable, reserving the flexible Caparo approach for novel cases.
- 6
What is a strength of the objective standard of breach?
Model answer
It provides consistency and certainty by judging everyone against the same reasonable person standard, though it can be criticised for treating learners and experts alike as if fully competent.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Evaluation in Tort, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.