Tort law explained: foundations, essential elements and defences
This work has been verified by our teacher: 13.02.2026 at 12:22
Homework type: Essay
Added: 12.02.2026 at 14:59
Summary:
Explore the foundations, essential elements, and defences of tort law to understand how civil wrongs are addressed in England and Wales legal system.
The Law of Torts: Foundations, Elements, and Defences
The law of torts occupies a vital place within the civil law framework of England and Wales, offering remedies when an individual’s legal rights are violated outside the realm of contracts. Unlike criminal law—where the state prosecutes offenders for wrongdoing against society—or contract law, which centres on duties voluntarily undertaken between parties, tort law addresses a diverse range of civil wrongs that result in damage to persons, property, or reputation. The underpinnings of tort law are designed not merely to compensate the aggrieved but, more importantly, to articulate and uphold standards of behaviour within society.
The term “tort” traces its roots to the Latin word “tortum,” meaning something twisted or wrong, which percolated into legal vernacular via Norman French influences following the Conquest. Although initially an import, the concept of tort developed considerably through the English common law, adapting to the needs and complexities of a changing society.
This essay seeks to demystify the law of torts by exploring its conceptual origins, identifying the core elements necessary to establish a tort, and scrutinising common defences advanced by those accused of tortious conduct. We will pay particular attention to defamation as a representative tort and, finally, consider the evolving role of policy in this ever-developing area of law.
---
I. Understanding the Concept of a Tort
To appreciate the place of tort within the English legal tradition, it is essential to distinguish torts from other species of legal wrongdoing. A person violated a contract may bring an action for breach, seeking the benefit of their bargain, while those involved in trusts or fiduciary relationships have specific redress for breaches of those duties. Tort, conversely, concerns itself with breaches of general duties imposed by law, not dependent on agreement or special relationships.For example, whilst the failure of a shopkeeper to supply agreed goods would be a contractual matter, an injury occurring due to neglect of the shop’s floors—leading to a customer’s fall—would be a tortious wrong, specifically negligence. Trust disputes, similarly, involve the misuse or misdirection of property by a trustee, a different category entirely.
The practical value of these distinctions manifests starkly in legal proceedings. The type of wrong determines which court may hear the claim, the remedies available (for example, damages versus equitable remedies), and the burden of proof required. In tort, the claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s actions or omissions harmed their legally protected interest.
---
II. Core Elements of a Tort Claim
For a claimant to succeed in a tortious action, certain key elements must be satisfied.1. Wrongful Act or Omission
At the heart of every tort lies a wrongful act or omission that breaches a duty recognised by law. Such acts range from careless driving causing personal injury (negligence), deliberate assaults (trespass to the person), unwarranted invasions of privacy (misuse of private information), to impairments of reputation (defamation). Importantly, liability may arise from both acts and, in certain circumstances, failures to act, particularly where a duty of care exists. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, the seminal ‘snail in the bottle’ case, Lord Atkin established the neighbour principle, underscoring the necessity of reasonable foreseeability in finding a breach of duty.2. Violation of Legal Rights
A successful tort action requires that a legally protected right has been infringed. These rights are not always written in statute but are often recognised through common law as evolving standards. Classic examples include the right to bodily integrity, the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property, and the preservation of one’s good name. It is not enough that the defendant has acted poorly; that act must intrude upon a right the law is prepared to protect.3. Damage Suffered
Central to most torts is the requirement that the claimant has suffered actual damage. This may be physical (injury or property damage), financial (economic loss), psychological (nervous shock), or reputational (in the case of defamation). Damages are generally unliquidated, meaning the amount is assessed by the court, reflecting the extent and nature of harm inflicted. The claimant must prove, usually with evidence, the loss they have endured as a result of the defendant’s wrong.4. Causation and Remoteness
There must be a clear connection between the defendant’s conduct and the claimant’s harm. The but-for test—would the claimant have suffered the damage but for the defendant’s act?—forms the basic structure for establishing factual causation. Legal causation further limits liability: courts will not compensate for consequences deemed too remote or unforeseeable. In The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388, the Privy Council held that only damage of a type reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s act or omission is recoverable.---
III. Foundational Legal Maxims Underpinning Tort Liability
Key Latin maxims illustrate the boundaries of tortious liability.Injuria Sine Damnum
This principle arises when a legal right is infringed without any actual loss. For instance, trespassing upon another’s land, even if no damage is caused, is actionable because it violates a right. The courts, in such cases, reinforce the sanctity of legal rights themselves.Damnum Sine Injuria
Conversely, this maxim describes situations where loss is sustained but no legal right is violated. For example, if a new competitor opens a business nearby, drawing away customers, the original business cannot sue for damages unless the competitor breaches another legal duty (such as defamation or passing off).Such maxims underpin judicial reasoning and anchor both the limits and reach of liability, ensuring that not every harm is actionable, but that legal rights remain robustly protected.
---
IV. General Defences Against Tort Claims
Defendants in tort actions have several avenues to limit or avoid liability.1. Vis Major (Act of God)
Where damage arises exclusively from exceptional natural events, such as earthquakes or extraordinary floods, without human intervention or fault, the defendant may be excused from liability. For instance, in Nichols v Marsland (1876), a sudden, unprecedented storm caused artificial lakes to burst, resulting in no liability for the landowner due to the event’s unforeseeability.2. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
No wrong is done to one who consents. A participant in a rugby match cannot, barring exceptional circumstances, sue for injuries inherent in that sport. The defence only applies if the claimant fully understands and voluntarily accepts the risk. Yet, in rescue scenarios—see Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966—the courts protect claimants acting out of moral imperative.3. Private Defence
The law allows individuals to protect themselves, others, and their property, provided the force used is reasonable and not excessive. Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 clarifies the right to use force to prevent crime, a principle echoed in tort. Nevertheless, pre-emptive or disproportionate retaliatory force remains outside the defence.4. Inevitable Accident
Where harm arises despite all reasonable precautions, as in Stanley v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86 (where a stray bullet injured a bystander during a pheasant shoot), liability may be avoided. Unlike vis major, the cause is human but not negligent.5. Contributory Negligence
A claimant’s own fault may diminish or entirely bar recovery. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages are apportioned according to the degree of fault. A cyclist ignoring traffic signals who is hit by a negligent driver may recover reduced damages.6. Remoteness of Damage
Liability is excluded for consequences too remote from the wrongful act, as established in The Wagon Mound. Courts apply the foreseeability test to ensure the defendant is not held responsible for highly improbable outcomes.7. Necessity
Acts otherwise unlawful may be justified if performed to avert a greater harm. Breaking into a stranger’s house to rescue a child from fire, for instance, might be excused under this defence.8. Statutory Authority
Acts done in accordance with statutory duties often confer immunity, provided limits are respected. For example, police exercising powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are protected unless acting in bad faith or ultra vires.---
V. Defamation as a Specific Tort
One of the most striking applications of tort law is found in defamation.Definition and Types
Defamation protects individuals against unwarranted attacks on their reputation, a value historically cherished in English society. It falls into two primary forms: libel, comprising permanent publications such as print or broadcast, and slander, relating to spoken or transitory statements. The distinction is more than academic, as libel generally presumes damages whereas slander usually requires proof of actual loss, with some exceptions (accusations of crime, disease, or professional incompetence).Proving Defamation
The claimant must prove a statement was made that would likely lower them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, that they were identifiable from the statement, and that it was published to a third party. In Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, Lord Atkin articulated the test as to whether words would tend to cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.Defences
Key defences include:- Truth (Justification): The most complete defence; the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the statement. - Honest Opinion: Statements of opinion (not fact) on matters of public interest may be protected under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013, provided they are honestly held. - Privilege: Some statements enjoy absolute privilege—for instance, those made in Parliament or courts (Parliamentary Papers Act 1840). Others, such as fair reporting of public meetings, have qualified privilege if made without malice. - Consent: If the claimant agreed to the publication, no claim lies.
With the explosion of online platforms, the law now wrestles with issues of global publication, anonymous authorship, and the rapid spread of defamatory content—a subject addressed by provisions in the Defamation Act 2013.
---
VI. The Role of Policy in Tort Law
Tort law does not exist in a vacuum but is continually moulded by wider social and economic considerations. Policy influences the scope of duties of care, the range of recoverable damages, and the availability of defences. Courts strive to strike an equilibrium, ensuring claimants are protected against egregious wrongs, while not stifling innovation, risk-taking or the functioning of essential public services.Judicial discretion remains a cornerstone—seen, for instance, in the evolution of liability for nervous shock or the expansion (and subsequent retrenchment) of duty of care in economic loss (see Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465). Statutory interventions, such as the Compensation Act 2006 and Defamation Act 2013, reflect ongoing attempts by Parliament to rebalance or clarify contentious areas.
---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in