Tort evaluation | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 65–75 minutes
This Tort evaluation A-Level Law revision page consolidates the AO3 skills needed for OCR H418/02. OCR expressly requires critical evaluation of liability in negligence, occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability, using frameworks including advantages and disadvantages, fairness, competing interests, the aims of tort law and, where appropriate, comparison between similar torts. The key skill is not memorising one generic essay. You must select the relevant legal rules, analyse their effects and answer the precise evaluative focus set by the question.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Compare negligence, occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability where this helps answer an evaluation question.
Analyse advantages and disadvantages of particular tort rules.
Analyse the fairness and unfairness of legal rules for claimants and defendants.
Explain how tort law balances competing interests.
Evaluate the extent to which particular tort rules achieve aims such as compensation, deterrence and fair allocation of loss.
Construct a balanced OCR 20-mark evaluation answer with accurate AO1 and developed AO3.
Revision Notes 📚
Tort evaluation A-Level Law revision overview
OCR identifies five broad ways in which tort law may be evaluated:
advantages and disadvantages
fairness or unfairness
balancing competing interests
the extent to which a tort achieves one or more aims of tort law
comparing and contrasting similar torts.
This lesson therefore consolidates the evaluation work from:
evaluating negligence [Lesson 120. Evaluating negligence]
evaluating occupiers’ liability [Lesson 125. Evaluating occupiers’ liability]
evaluating vicarious liability [Lesson 137. Evaluating vicarious liability].
It also draws on the complete liability and remedies framework consolidated in tort remedies problem solving [Lesson 143. Tort remedies problem solving].
The first rule of tort evaluation: answer the question asked
An OCR evaluation question is not an invitation to write everything you know about tort law.
For example:
Discuss whether the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is fair on adult visitors.
This is not asking:
whether the Act is fair generally
whether the Act is fair on occupiers
whether the 1984 Act is fair
whether children receive enough protection.
OCR's 2025 examiner report found that weaker answers frequently drifted away from the precise focus, including evaluating the wrong Act, the wrong group or fairness to the wrong party.
Similarly:
Discuss the extent to which the rules on causation in negligence are fair.
requires evaluation of causation, rather than a generic essay on:
duty
breach
compensation
negligence as a whole.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme focused specifically on:
factual causation
intervening acts
remoteness
the eggshell skull rule.
📌 Exam technique: Write the evaluative focus at the top of your plan.
Examples:
FAIRNESS OF CAUSATION
FAIRNESS TO ADULT VISITORS
FAIRNESS TO EMPLOYERS
Then test every paragraph against that heading.
AO1 and AO3 must work together
OCR tort evaluation questions are typically worth 20 marks:
8 marks AO1
12 marks AO3.
This means an essay cannot score highly using evaluation alone.
You need:
accurate law
analysis of that law
a sustained answer to the evaluative question.
Weak approach
The Occupiers’ Liability Act is fair because occupiers owe visitors a duty.
This mostly states the law and attaches the word "fair".
OCR's 2025 examiner report specifically criticised this type of response because it does not explain why the rule is fair or unfair.
Stronger approach
The common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is fair to adult visitors because it gives all lawful visitors a consistent basic standard of protection rather than dividing them into several common law categories. However, the requirement is only to take reasonable care, which protects occupiers from becoming insurers of visitor safety and therefore creates a balance between compensation and personal responsibility.
This contains:
AO1
an advantage
a competing interest
a reasoned evaluation.
A universal AO3 structure
A strong evaluation paragraph can usually follow:
1. Identify the legal rule
What does the law actually say?
2. Explain the advantage or criticism
Why might the rule be:
fair
unfair
effective
ineffective?
3. Identify whose interest is affected
For example:
claimant
defendant
employer
occupier
visitor
wider public.
4. Counter the argument
What competing argument can be made?
5. Use authority
Support the discussion with a relevant case or statute.
6. Reach a mini judgement
Explain which side is stronger for the question being asked.
The aims of tort law
The OCR specification requires an overview of the aims of tort law and expressly permits evaluation of the extent to which individual torts achieve those aims.
Across OCR's evaluation mark schemes, relevant aims and policy considerations include:
compensation
deterrence and prevention
fairness and justice
fair distribution of loss
protection of relevant interests
certainty and predictability.
Not every essay needs all of these.
Select the aims which genuinely illuminate the rule being evaluated.
Aim 1: compensation
A major purpose of tortious actions is compensating people who suffer actionable harm.
Strength
Negligence, occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability can all provide routes to compensation.
For example:
negligence can compensate personal injury and property damage where duty, breach and causation are established
occupiers’ liability can compensate visitors injured by dangers associated with premises
vicarious liability may give a claimant access to an employer better able to satisfy a damages award.
Limitation
Tort law does not compensate every person who has suffered harm.
Claimants must establish legal requirements.
Examples include:
causation in negligence
statutory duty requirements in occupiers’ liability
the relationship and connection requirements in vicarious liability.
This reflects a competing aim:
Compensation should be available where legal responsibility is justified, not simply whenever someone suffers loss.
Aim 2: deterrence and prevention
Potential liability may encourage people and organisations to reduce risks.
Negligence
The objective standard of reasonable care encourages:
precautions
safer behaviour
risk assessment.
Occupiers’ liability
The possibility of liability encourages occupiers to:
consider dangers on premises
take reasonable precautions
use effective warnings where appropriate.
Vicarious liability
Potential employer responsibility can encourage:
careful recruitment
training
supervision
safe systems of work.
OCR's vicarious liability evaluation materials expressly identify promoting high standards and good working practices as a public policy justification.
Limitation
Excessively burdensome liability can itself create undesirable effects.
Businesses may face:
increased insurance premiums
operating costs
pressure to restrict socially useful activity.
OCR's 2025 occupiers’ liability mark scheme expressly recognises the need to balance visitor safety against burdensome business costs and insurance premiums.
Aim 3: fairness and corrective justice
Tort law often attempts to ensure that a person who wrongfully causes harm bears appropriate responsibility.
This is particularly visible in negligence:
D should generally be liable where D owed C a duty, fell below the required standard and caused legally recoverable damage.
However, other areas complicate a simple fault principle.
Vicarious liability
The employer may be liable even though the employee committed the tort.
This can appear inconsistent with personal fault.
OCR's vicarious liability material directly identifies this criticism.
Counterargument
The employer:
benefits from the activity
creates work-related risks
is often insured
may be best placed to compensate.
Fairness can therefore be viewed more broadly than simply asking:
"Who personally committed the tort?"
Aim 4: fair distribution of loss
Tort law sometimes determines who should bear an unavoidable loss.
Consider three possibilities:
injured claimant bears the loss
individual tortfeasor bears it
organisation associated with the risk bears it.
Vicarious liability illustrates loss distribution especially clearly.
An employer may:
have greater resources
hold insurance
distribute costs through business activity.
This can leave the claimant with effective compensation without requiring an individual employee to fund a potentially devastating award personally.
However, costs may eventually affect:
customers
employees
insurance premiums.
Loss is distributed rather than eliminated.
Aim 5: certainty and predictability
A fair legal system should ideally allow people to understand the rules governing their conduct.
Advantage of clear tests
Rules such as the basic but for test in negligence can promote:
certainty
predictability
equal treatment.
OCR's 2024 causation mark scheme describes this as one fairness argument in favour of the test.
Difficulty
Flexible concepts such as:
reasonableness
foreseeability
close connection
sufficient warnings
allow individual justice but can create uncertainty.
This creates a recurring trade-off:
certainty versus flexibility
A rigid rule may be predictable but unfair in unusual cases.
A flexible rule may produce fairer individual outcomes but be harder to predict.
Evaluating negligence
Negligence aims to compensate people who suffer injury or property damage because another person has failed to take reasonable care.
A complete negligence claim requires:
duty of care
breach
factual causation
legal causation
actionable damage.
OCR permits critical evaluation of liability in negligence generally.
The precise rules were evaluated fully in evaluating negligence [Lesson 120. Evaluating negligence].
Negligence strength: fault-based liability
A major strength is that negligence generally requires proof of fault.
D is not liable merely because C has been injured.
C must establish that D fell below the required standard.
Why this can be fair
It protects defendants from becoming automatic insurers against all accidents.
The standard of the reasonable person provides an objective basis for judging conduct.
Liability therefore focuses on unreasonable risk-taking rather than bad luck alone.
Counterargument
An objective standard can sometimes appear harsh where an individual defendant was genuinely incapable of meeting it.
There is therefore tension between:
certainty and consistent standards
sensitivity to individual circumstances.
Negligence strength: flexible breach factors
The standard of care can respond to context through factors such as:
likelihood of harm
seriousness of possible harm
cost and practicality of precautions
social utility.
This flexibility enables courts to balance:
claimant safety
against
the burden imposed on D.
Advantage
A defendant is not expected to eliminate every possible risk regardless of:
cost
probability
social consequences.
Criticism
Because these factors require judicial judgement, outcomes may be less predictable.
The same flexibility which enables individual justice can reduce certainty.
Negligence and causation
OCR's 2024 evaluation question focused specifically on whether factual and legal causation are fair.
This provides excellent examples of advanced AO3.
The but for test
Under Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital, factual causation asks whether the harm would have occurred but for D's breach.
Advantage
The test is:
conceptually simple
relatively certain
applied consistently.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme recognises this as supporting predictability and the rule of law.
Criticism
The civil standard can create an all-or-nothing outcome.
Where causation is more likely than not:
D bears liability.
Where it falls below that threshold:
C receives nothing from D.
This can seem harsh where D clearly behaved negligently but C cannot establish the required causal link.
Judgement
The test promotes certainty, but certainty can sometimes come at the cost of compensation.
Novus actus interveniens
The doctrine of an intervening act can break the chain of causation.
Advantage
It is fair to D because liability should not continue indefinitely where a genuinely independent event becomes responsible for the eventual harm.
Criticism
Whether an intervening event is sufficient can depend upon judicial assessment of:
reasonableness
foreseeability
responsibility.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme recognises that case-by-case decisions can reduce certainty and make advice more difficult.
Remoteness
Under The Wagon Mound (No 1), the relevant type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
Advantage
The rule protects D from unlimited liability.
It links compensation to harm which D could reasonably be expected to contemplate.
This supports a moral and fault-based approach to negligence.
Criticism
Cases involving the:
type
extent
manner
of damage can make foreseeability difficult to apply consistently.
A defendant may become liable for consequences more extensive or unusual than originally expected.
Evaluation
Remoteness therefore attempts to balance:
fair compensation for C
against
a reasonable limit on D's responsibility.
The eggshell skull rule
Under the eggshell skull principle, D must take C as found.
Advantage
The rule strongly protects vulnerable claimants.
A claimant should not receive less compensation simply because they happen to have:
an unusual vulnerability
a pre-existing weakness.
Criticism
The defendant may face significantly greater liability than could have been predicted from the original incident.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme recognises both sides of this fairness debate.
Judgement
The rule prioritises the innocent claimant over the negligent defendant once the relevant type of harm is foreseeable.
How successfully does negligence achieve tort aims?
Aim | Strength | Limitation |
Compensation | Successful claimants can recover for actionable injury and property loss. | Claimants who cannot prove duty, breach or causation receive no compensation. |
Fault | Liability generally requires unreasonable conduct. | Objective tests may sometimes appear harsh or inflexible. |
Deterrence | Encourages reasonable precautions. | Excessive fear of liability may discourage useful activity. |
Fairness | Risk factors allow context-sensitive decisions. | Flexible judicial judgement can reduce predictability. |
Certainty | Established tests structure liability. | Concepts such as reasonableness and foreseeability remain open to interpretation. |
Evaluating occupiers’ liability
OCR requires evaluation of occupiers’ liability.
This includes the rules governing:
lawful visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
trespassers under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
The detailed comparison was developed in evaluating occupiers’ liability [Lesson 125. Evaluating occupiers’ liability].
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957: common duty of care
The 1957 Act created a common duty of care for lawful visitors.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme identifies this as a major fairness advantage because earlier law imposed different duties on different types of lawful visitor.
Advantage
The common duty promotes:
consistency
simplicity
equal basic protection for lawful visitors.
This supports:
certainty
compensation
fairness.
Counterargument
A single statutory framework does not guarantee a successful claim.
The duty remains based on taking reasonable care, and the Act contains several ways in which the scope of liability can be limited.
Broad definitions can favour claimants
The 1957 Act defines premises broadly.
Common law also recognises that more than one person can potentially qualify as an occupier where they possess sufficient control, as illustrated by Wheat v Lacon.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme identifies this as potentially fair to visitors because it can broaden the range of defendants against whom a claim may be made.
Advantage
The claimant may have a realistic defendant from whom compensation can be obtained.
Criticism
The absence of a statutory definition of "occupier" means common law interpretation remains necessary.
This can:
complicate classification
reduce certainty in marginal cases.
Reasonable care protects both sides
Section 2(2) of the 1957 Act requires reasonable care to keep the visitor reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
Fair to visitors
Visitors receive legal protection from unreasonable dangers.
Fair to occupiers
The occupier is not expected to make premises completely risk-free.
The legal standard is reasonable safety, not absolute safety.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme specifically describes the objective reasonableness standard as a way of achieving fair outcomes for both sides.
Obvious risks and personal responsibility
One major policy issue is whether occupiers should protect adults from obvious dangers.
OCR's 2025 evaluation material refers to judicial approaches to obvious risks, including:
Laverton v Kiapasha
The Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell.
Argument for limiting liability
Adults should take reasonable responsibility for themselves.
It may be unfair and impractical to require occupiers to:
warn about every obvious risk
anticipate every foolish choice
make all premises completely safe.
This protects:
businesses
property owners
socially useful activities.
Counterargument
Visitors may still reasonably expect occupiers to deal with dangers which the occupier:
knows about
controls
can reasonably address.
The challenge is drawing a line between:
reasonable protection
and
overprotection.
Skilled visitors
Under section 2(3)(b), occupiers may expect people exercising a calling to appreciate risks ordinarily connected with their specialist work.
Advantage for occupiers
It prevents the occupier being responsible for specialised risks better understood by the skilled visitor.
Potential unfairness to C
The visitor is still injured on the occupier's premises.
However, an alternative negligence claim against another responsible party may sometimes remain possible.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme expressly treats this as part of the fairness balance.
Independent contractors
Section 2(4)(b) can relieve an occupier of responsibility for defective work performed by an independent contractor if the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Fairness to D
An occupier should not necessarily be liable for technical work they reasonably entrusted to a competent specialist and appropriately checked.
Fairness to C
The injured visitor may still have another route to compensation against the negligent contractor.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme treats this division of responsibility as potentially fair to both parties.
Limitation
The existence of multiple potential defendants can make the legal position more complicated for an injured visitor.
Warnings
Warnings illustrate the balance between:
occupier responsibility
visitor autonomy.
A sufficient warning can help an occupier satisfy the required standard.
However, OCR's 2025 examiner report warns against the common misconception that occupiers are under a general obligation to provide warnings in every situation.
Evaluation
This is potentially fair because:
occupiers can reasonably communicate dangers
visitors can then make informed choices.
However:
an ineffective warning should not automatically protect D
obvious risks may not require warnings at all.
The law therefore attempts to avoid both:
excessive claimant protection
excessive occupier responsibility.
Evaluating the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
The 1984 Act extends some protection to people who are not lawful visitors.
This creates a particularly strong fairness debate.
OCR's 2022 mark scheme evaluated the Act specifically from the perspective of occupiers.
Argument: protection of human safety is justified
Earlier law could prioritise property rights very strongly.
The 1984 Act recognises that even trespassers may deserve some protection from serious dangers.
This can be defended on:
humanity
protection of life
social standards.
Argument: unfair to occupiers
An occupier may potentially owe duties to a person who entered without permission.
Critics may argue that:
intentional trespassers should take greater personal responsibility
property owners should not bear substantial costs caused by unauthorised entrants.
Limits protect occupiers
OCR identifies several limits which can make the Act fairer to occupiers:
the conditions in section 1(3)
obvious dangers
warnings
volenti
claimant foolhardiness
no recovery for property damage.
These restrictions prevent the Act from treating a trespasser exactly like a lawful visitor.
Compensation culture
OCR permits discussion of the so-called compensation culture as part of tort theory.
This can be particularly relevant to occupiers’ liability.
Criticism
Wide occupier liability might encourage:
unnecessary claims
defensive practices
restrictions on recreational or socially useful activities
increased insurance costs.
Counterargument
The existence of legal protection does not mean every claimant succeeds.
The law retains requirements concerning:
duty
reasonableness
obvious dangers
warnings
claimant responsibility.
Therefore, the legislation may provide meaningful protection without making occupiers automatically responsible for every accident.
Evaluating vicarious liability
Vicarious liability creates one of the clearest conflicts between:
personal fault
effective compensation
enterprise responsibility.
The detailed AO3 arguments were developed in evaluating vicarious liability [Lesson 137. Evaluating vicarious liability].
OCR has tested the issue of fairness to employers in both specimen material and live assessments.
Vicarious liability and the fault principle
Criticism
The employer may be held responsible even though the employee committed the tort.
OCR's 2023 mark scheme identifies this as a direct conflict with the fault-based character of tort liability.
An employer may:
recruit carefully
train effectively
expressly prohibit the unsafe conduct
and still potentially be liable.
Advantage
The employer is not a random person.
The employer:
creates the working relationship
benefits from employee activity
may control and supervise work
can insure against work-related risks.
Liability can therefore represent enterprise responsibility rather than personal blame.
Compensation as a justification for vicarious liability
The employee who commits the tort may have limited resources.
The employer is generally more likely to:
have assets
have insurance
be able to satisfy the claimant's judgment.
Advantage
This strongly supports the aim of compensation.
A claimant should not necessarily be left uncompensated because the individual tortfeasor is unable to pay.
Criticism
"Deep pockets" cannot alone justify liability.
The defendant must still satisfy the legal requirements for the relevant relationship and connection.
Otherwise, vicarious liability would simply make wealthy organisations responsible whenever a claimant needed money.
Employer benefit and enterprise risk
OCR's vicarious liability evaluation material recognises that employers benefit financially from employee work and may fairly bear the associated risks.
Advantage
The employer receives the benefit of work.
It may therefore fairly bear the burden of sufficiently work-related harm.
Criticism
The argument becomes weaker where an employee:
pursues a private vendetta
commits an unpredictable criminal act
completely abandons the employer's business.
Modern rules provide limits in such circumstances.
Control, training and prevention
Employers can often:
select employees
provide training
supervise work
discipline dangerous behaviour.
This can justify liability and promote deterrence.
Limitation
OCR's evaluation material recognises that this explanation is weaker for highly skilled professionals over whom an organisation exercises limited practical control.
This demonstrates why no single policy argument fully explains every vicarious liability case.
Certainty and modern vicarious liability
Modern rules include:
traditional employment tests
relationships akin to employment
course-of-employment rules
close connection.
Strength
The law can adapt to:
non-traditional work
intentional torts
complex organisations.
Weakness
Flexible legal tests can make outcomes less predictable.
OCR materials recognise apparently inconsistent outcomes as a possible criticism of vicarious liability.
Evaluation
Again, the law trades:
certainty
for
flexibility and individual justice.
Comparing negligence, occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability
OCR expressly permits comparison and contrast between similar tort areas where appropriate.
Comparison is useful when it helps make an evaluative point.
It should not become a long description of another tort irrelevant to the question.
Comparison 1: fault
Negligence | Occupiers’ liability | Vicarious liability |
Generally fault-based. | Uses reasonable-care standards and statutory duties. | Defendant may be liable for the tort of another. |
C must establish D's failure to meet the required standard. | Occupier is not an absolute insurer of safety. | Personal fault by the employer is not required in the same way. |
Strongly reflects individual responsibility. | Balances occupier responsibility with visitor conduct. | Reflects enterprise risk and loss distribution. |
Evaluation
Negligence most clearly reflects the traditional fault principle.
Occupiers’ liability also retains a reasonableness-based approach.
Vicarious liability departs furthest from personal fault, but may achieve compensation and loss distribution more effectively.
Comparison 2: compensation
Negligence
Compensation depends upon C proving:
duty
breach
causation.
Occupiers’ liability
The legislation creates structured routes to compensation for:
lawful visitors
certain trespassers.
Vicarious liability
The doctrine can make compensation more practically effective by providing a defendant with greater financial resources.
Evaluation
If compensation is given the greatest weight, vicarious liability may appear particularly successful.
If personal fault is prioritised, the same feature may appear unfair.
Comparison 3: personal responsibility
Negligence
The reasonable-person standard expects D to act responsibly.
Occupiers’ liability
The law also expects visitors to exercise some responsibility for:
obvious dangers
risks associated with skilled work
warnings
their own behaviour.
Vicarious liability
The employee may personally commit the tort, but liability can be shifted to the employer.
Evaluation
The balance differs because each area responds to a different kind of relationship.
The correct evaluation is not that one tort is simply "fairer".
Instead ask:
Does each area place responsibility on the party best positioned to manage the relevant risk?
Comparison 4: prevention of harm
Negligence
Encourages reasonable precautions.
Occupiers’ liability
Encourages occupiers to make premises reasonably safe and deal appropriately with dangers.
Vicarious liability
Encourages organisations to:
train
supervise
organise work safely.
Comparison
All three can promote prevention.
However, none requires total elimination of risk.
That is important because an excessively strict liability system could:
impose disproportionate costs
discourage socially useful activity.
Comparison 5: certainty versus flexibility
All three areas use flexible concepts.
Negligence
reasonable person
foreseeability
reasonableness of precautions.
Occupiers’ liability
occupier
reasonable care
sufficient warning
reasonable expectations.
Vicarious liability
akin to employment
course of employment
close connection.
Advantage
Flexibility permits justice tailored to real factual circumstances.
Disadvantage
Parties may have difficulty predicting exactly where a court will draw the line.
This is a useful comparative AO3 theme because it runs across the whole law of tort.
Competing interests across tort law
A sophisticated answer identifies who gains and who loses from a rule.
Negligence
Competing interests include:
Claimant
compensation
protection from unreasonable risk.
Defendant
freedom from liability for unforeseeable or unavoidable accidents.
Society
safe behaviour
avoidance of excessive defensive practices.
Occupiers’ liability
Competing interests include:
Visitor
personal safety
compensation.
Occupier
reasonable freedom to use property
protection from excessive liability.
Public
continued access to businesses, recreation and open spaces
reasonable safety standards.
Vicarious liability
Competing interests include:
Claimant
effective compensation.
Employee
protection from bearing the full financial burden of work-related mistakes.
Employer
avoiding liability for truly personal wrongdoing.
Public and customers
safer organisational practice
but also avoiding excessive costs passed through businesses.
The key question: who should bear the loss?
This question sits underneath many tort evaluation problems.
Suppose an innocent claimant has suffered harm.
Possible loss-bearers include:
C
individual D
employer
insurer
business and ultimately consumers.
Tort law determines how that loss is allocated.
A high-level evaluation therefore asks not only:
"Is the rule fair to D?"
but also:
"Compared with the alternative, who should fairly bear this loss?"
That makes analysis much more sophisticated.
How to evaluate a rule rather than describe it
Consider the occupiers’ liability rule:
An occupier need only take reasonable care to keep an adult visitor reasonably safe.
Description only
The law requires reasonable care.
That is AO1.
Basic evaluation
This is fair because it is reasonable.
This adds very little.
Developed evaluation
The objective requirement of reasonable care balances competing interests because visitors receive protection from dangers created or controlled by the occupier without turning the occupier into an insurer against every accident. This protects legitimate claimant expectations while allowing businesses and property owners to continue activities involving ordinary risks. However, reliance on the flexible concept of reasonableness gives judges considerable discretion, which may reduce certainty in marginal cases.
That is genuine AO3.
Comparing is not the same as evaluating
A comparison can support evaluation but does not automatically constitute it.
Mere comparison
Negligence is common law while occupiers’ liability is statutory.
That is primarily descriptive.
Evaluative comparison
The statutory common duty under the 1957 Act can provide greater structural clarity for lawful visitors than the broader common law development of negligence. However, many key occupiers’ liability terms still depend on judicial interpretation, so statutory form does not completely remove uncertainty.
This explains why the comparison matters.
Should you compare the 1957 and 1984 Acts?
Only where the question makes the comparison relevant.
OCR's 2025 examiner report specifically criticised students who answered a question about fairness to adult visitors under the 1957 Act by comparing it with the 1984 Act instead.
Therefore:
Do not compare merely because you know both Acts.
Use comparison only where it helps answer the actual wording.
Planning a 20-mark OCR tort evaluation
A reliable structure is:
Introduction
Define the relevant tort or rule briefly.
Identify the evaluative debate.
Give an initial direction without trying to answer everything immediately.
AO1 and AO3 paragraph 1
Explain one significant rule.
Evaluate it directly against the question.
AO1 and AO3 paragraph 2
Explain another significant rule.
Develop:
advantage
criticism
counterargument
mini judgement.
Paragraph 3
Use a different legal area within the topic.
Paragraph 4
Introduce a broader policy issue, such as:
compensation
deterrence
personal responsibility
insurance
certainty.
Tie it to the legal rules.
Paragraph 5
If useful, compare with a related tort or rule.
Only do this where it advances the specific argument.
Conclusion
Weigh the arguments.
Do not merely repeat:
"There are advantages and disadvantages."
State:
which aims are achieved best
where the law is weakest
whose interests are prioritised
whether the balance is justified.
A useful paragraph model: IDEA
You can remember:
I: Identify
Identify the relevant legal rule.
D: Develop
Explain why it may be advantageous, fair or effective.
E: Evaluate
Challenge the point with:
an opposing interest
limitation
inconsistent authority
policy concern.
A: Answer
Link directly back to the wording of the question.
Worked evaluation paragraph: negligence
The remoteness rule can be defended as fair because it limits a negligent defendant's responsibility to a reasonably foreseeable type of harm, preventing liability from extending indefinitely. This supports fault-based responsibility because D is only required to answer for consequences sufficiently connected with the risk created. However, the courts distinguish the foreseeable type of damage from its precise extent or manner, which can leave D responsible for significantly greater loss than expected. This particularly benefits vulnerable claimants but reduces predictability for defendants. On balance, the rule provides a defensible compromise because some limit on liability is necessary, while requiring C to prove the precise scale of every consequence would undercompensate those with unusual vulnerabilities.
Worked evaluation paragraph: occupiers’ liability
The broad approach to identifying an occupier under Wheat v Lacon can be fair to adult visitors because more than one person may possess sufficient control, increasing the likelihood that an injured visitor can identify a suitable defendant and obtain compensation. However, the concept is not exhaustively defined by the 1957 Act and depends upon common law interpretation, which can create uncertainty in borderline cases. The rule therefore promotes compensation but achieves certainty less successfully.
This mirrors the kind of developed reasoning praised in OCR's 2025 examiner report.
Worked evaluation paragraph: vicarious liability
Vicarious liability conflicts with the normal fault principle because an employer can be liable even though an employee actually committed the tort. This may appear especially unfair where the employer recruited carefully, provided training and expressly prohibited the conduct. However, placing the entire loss on the claimant or individual employee may be even less satisfactory because the employer created and benefited from the work activity, is generally better insured and can distribute the financial risk. The doctrine therefore sacrifices strict personal fault in order to achieve compensation and enterprise-based loss distribution more effectively.
Reaching a strong overall judgement
A high-quality conclusion should rank the competing arguments.
Weak conclusion
Negligence has advantages and disadvantages, so it is partly fair.
Stronger conclusion
Negligence largely achieves a fair balance because liability depends upon fault and legally attributable harm rather than the mere fact that an accident occurred. The flexible standard of care and foreseeability rules allow courts to consider individual circumstances while limiting potentially unlimited liability. However, that same flexibility can reduce certainty, and causation rules sometimes leave an injured claimant uncompensated despite clear wrongdoing by D. Overall, negligence prioritises fault and controlled liability over guaranteed compensation, which is defensible but means its compensatory aim is achieved only selectively.
Which tort best achieves compensation?
There is no single compulsory answer.
You could reason:
Negligence
Provides compensation but only where fault and causation are proved.
Occupiers’ liability
Provides structured protection based on the claimant's status and the occupier's reasonable responsibility.
Vicarious liability
Often makes compensation especially effective because an employer may be better able to pay.
Possible judgement
If the only measure were practical compensation, vicarious liability may be particularly effective.
However, if fault-based justice is given greater importance, negligence may provide the stronger theoretical balance.
The quality of the argument matters more than choosing a predetermined answer.
Which tort best reflects personal responsibility?
Again, the answer depends upon your analysis.
Negligence
Strongly links D's liability to D's own breach.
Occupiers’ liability
Shares responsibility between:
occupier
visitor.
It recognises:
reasonable precautions
obvious risks
warnings
claimant behaviour.
Vicarious liability
Transfers responsibility to a party who may not have committed the tort.
This makes it the weakest fit with strict personal fault, but perhaps the strongest fit with:
enterprise risk
compensation
loss distribution.
Which area provides the fairest balance?
A sophisticated answer can argue that each balances different risks.
Negligence
Balances:
freedom of action against reasonable care for neighbours.
Occupiers’ liability
Balances:
visitor safety against personal responsibility and occupier freedom.
Vicarious liability
Balances:
claimant compensation against the limits of employer responsibility.
Therefore, saying:
"Vicarious liability is less fault-based"
does not automatically mean:
"Vicarious liability is less fair."
Fairness depends upon which competing interest the law is trying to reconcile.
Using cases effectively in evaluation
Cases should support your argument, not become detached stories.
Weak use
Barnett says but for. Wagon Mound is remoteness. Smith v Leech Brain is eggshell skull.
This is largely a list.
Stronger use
The Wagon Mound foreseeability requirement protects defendants against indeterminate liability, but the eggshell skull rule in Smith v Leech Brain then deliberately prioritises full compensation for vulnerable claimants once the relevant type of injury is foreseeable. The interaction of the two rules demonstrates negligence's attempt to limit the scope of liability without allowing unusual vulnerability to disadvantage C.
One paragraph can therefore combine:
AO1
comparison
competing interests
AO3.
The importance of counterarguments
OCR Level 4 AO3 requires evaluation that is:
wide-ranging
fully developed
sustained in focus
supported by a valid conclusion.
A one-sided list rarely does this.
For each major argument, ask:
What would the other party say?
Example:
Claimant argument
The 1984 Act humanely protects life even where C is trespassing.
Occupier counterargument
A deliberate trespasser chose to enter without permission and should bear greater personal responsibility.
Response
The restricted section 1(3) duty, warnings, obvious danger principles and volenti limit that burden, meaning the Act does not protect trespassers unconditionally.
That creates genuine analysis.
Do not turn every essay into "compensation culture"
The compensation-culture debate is within OCR's tort theory specification.
However, it should be used only where relevant.
A weak answer repeatedly argues:
"This could create a compensation culture."
without explaining:
how
why
which legal rule
whose interest is affected.
A stronger use might be:
Requiring occupiers to eliminate even obvious risks could encourage defensive practices, higher insurance costs and restrictions on ordinary recreational activity. Judicial reluctance to impose duties in relation to obvious dangers can therefore be justified as preventing occupiers’ liability from becoming an unrestricted compensation scheme.
Exam strategy: build evaluative chains
Aim to write reasoning such as:
Rule
→ impact
→ who benefits
→ countervailing cost
→ judgement.
Example
Rule: True independent contractors fall outside ordinary employer vicarious liability.
Impact: This limits the employer's potential responsibility.
Who benefits: Employers are protected from liability for genuinely independent businesses over which they lack the employment relationship.
Cost: An injured claimant may have to pursue an individual contractor who has fewer resources.
Judgement: The rule protects the fault and relationship principles but may weaken effective compensation.
That is much more analytical than simply writing:
"Independent contractors are an advantage to employers."
Choosing the correct evaluation framework
OCR gives several possible frameworks.
Use the one in the question.
If asked about advantages and disadvantages
Focus on:
effectiveness
clarity
flexibility
practical consequences.
If asked about fairness
Focus on:
C versus D
responsibility
justice
consistency
competing interests.
If asked whether the law achieves its aims
Structure around:
compensation
deterrence
fault
loss distribution
certainty.
If asked to compare torts
Use common criteria.
For example:
Criterion | Negligence | Occupiers’ liability | Vicarious liability |
Fault | Strong | Strong reasonableness basis | Less dependent on D's personal fault |
Compensation | Conditional on full claim | Structured statutory routes | Often practically effective |
Deterrence | Encourages reasonable care | Encourages safe premises | Encourages safe organisational practices |
Personal responsibility | Strong emphasis on D's fault | Shared with visitors | Employer may bear another's fault |
Certainty | Established elements but flexible standards | Statutory structure but judicial interpretation | Modern flexible tests can be uncertain |
A final comparative judgement
A reasoned comparison might conclude:
Negligence offers the strongest adherence to personal fault, but its strict causation requirements can prevent compensation even where D has clearly behaved carelessly. Occupiers’ liability uses more specialised statutory rules to balance property control and visitor safety, with the distinction between lawful visitors and trespassers preserving an important role for personal responsibility. Vicarious liability departs furthest from personal fault, but this enables it to achieve effective compensation and loss distribution particularly well. The three areas therefore demonstrate that tort law does not pursue one aim at the expense of all others. Its rules repeatedly balance compensation and deterrence against fairness to defendants, personal autonomy and the need to avoid unlimited liability.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Competing interests | The different and sometimes conflicting needs of claimants, defendants and wider society. | Explain why a rule may benefit one party while imposing a cost on another. |
Compensation | Financial redress for actionable harm suffered by a claimant. | Evaluate how effectively negligence, occupiers’ liability or vicarious liability enables recovery. |
Deterrence | Encouraging safer behaviour by creating the possibility of legal responsibility. | Assess whether liability promotes precautions, supervision or safer premises. |
Fault principle | The idea that responsibility should ordinarily attach to the person whose wrongful conduct caused the harm. | Compare fault-based negligence with vicarious liability for another person's tort. |
Loss distribution | Allocation or spreading of the financial consequences of tortious harm. | Evaluate insurance and enterprise liability, especially in vicarious liability. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Keep the exact "spin" of the question throughout the essay. OCR's 2025 report praised candidates who evaluated the 1957 Act specifically from the perspective of adult visitors and criticised answers that evaluated the wrong party or the wrong Act.
Examiner hint: Do not treat an evaluation essay as AO3 only. Successful responses combine confident knowledge of the relevant law with developed evaluation. OCR specifically identified answers with little or no AO1 as weaker responses.
Examiner hint: Adding the word "fair" to an AO1 statement does not turn it into AO3. OCR expressly criticised answers such as saying that a duty is fair merely because it exists. Explain why the rule creates a fair or unfair consequence.
Examiner hint: Develop counterarguments. Level 4 evaluation requires a wide range of fully developed points and a sustained focus on the question, rather than a collection of undeveloped assertions.
Examiner hint: Use cases to support reasoning. OCR's 2024 causation material shows how individual authorities can be used to evaluate certainty, claimant protection, remoteness and policy rather than merely being listed.
Examiner hint: Compare only when it helps. OCR's 2025 report specifically criticised unnecessary comparison between the 1957 and 1984 Acts when the question asked only about adult lawful visitors under the 1957 Act.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Writing one memorised tort essay for every question
Why this is incorrect: OCR may change the evaluative focus from fairness to aims, advantages, competing interests or a particular legal rule.
How to improve: Rewrite your paragraph headings using the exact wording of the question before you start.
Mistake: Writing evaluation without AO1
Why this is incorrect: OCR awards 8 AO1 marks in a 20-mark tort evaluation essay.
How to improve: Ground every major evaluative point in an accurate legal rule and relevant authority.
Mistake: Turning AO1 into fake AO3
Why this is incorrect: Writing "this is fair because the law protects C" does not explain why the outcome is justified.
How to improve: Explain the consequence, competing interest and reason the balance is or is not justified.
Mistake: Assuming compensation is the only aim of tort law
Why this is incorrect: OCR permits wider analysis involving fairness, deterrence, loss distribution and other policy considerations.
How to improve: Select the aims most relevant to the tort or rule being evaluated.
Mistake: Saying a rule is unfair to D without considering C
Why this is incorrect: Fairness normally involves competing interests.
How to improve: Ask:
If D were not liable, who would bear the loss instead?
Mistake: Treating all claimant protection as "compensation culture"
Why this is incorrect: A legal right to compensation following an established tort is not automatically evidence of an excessive compensation culture.
How to improve: Explain specifically whether the rule creates unreasonable incentives, costs or restrictions.
Mistake: Comparing torts when the question does not require it
Why this is incorrect: Irrelevant comparison can displace the detailed evaluation actually needed.
How to improve: Compare only where the comparison produces a useful evaluative insight.
Mistake: Describing cases without evaluating their effect
Why this is incorrect: A long factual account of a case earns AO1 at best.
How to improve: After each authority ask:
What does this outcome show about fairness, certainty or achievement of tort aims?
Mistake: Giving an entirely one-sided essay
Why this is incorrect: High-level evaluation requires developed consideration of competing arguments.
How to improve: For each major point, build at least one meaningful counterargument.
Mistake: Ending with "it depends"
Why this is incorrect: Evaluation requires a supported judgement.
How to improve: State what the law achieves well, what it achieves less well and whether the overall balance is justified.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Explain two aims of tort law which could be used when evaluating negligence, occupiers’ liability or vicarious liability. [4 marks]
Question 2
Explain why the fault principle can be used both to support negligence and to criticise vicarious liability. [6 marks]
Question 3
Analyse one way in which negligence balances the interests of claimants and defendants. [6 marks]
Question 4
Analyse whether the use of a reasonable-care standard creates a fair balance in occupiers’ liability. [8 marks]
Question 5
Analyse the argument that vicarious liability achieves compensation at the expense of individual fault. [8 marks]
Question 6
Compare the role of personal responsibility in negligence and occupiers’ liability. [10 marks]
Question 7
Evaluate the extent to which flexibility is an advantage in the law of tort. Refer to at least two of negligence, occupiers’ liability and vicarious liability. [12 marks]
Question 8
Discuss the extent to which the rules governing causation in negligence achieve a fair balance between claimants and defendants. [20 marks]
Question 9
Discuss the extent to which the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 achieves a fair balance between the interests of adult visitors and occupiers. [20 marks]
Question 10
Discuss the extent to which vicarious liability achieves the aims of tort law. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award up to 4 marks for two developed aims.
Possible answers include:
Compensation
Tort law can provide financial redress to claimants who establish actionable harm.
Deterrence
Potential liability can encourage people and organisations to take reasonable precautions and reduce future harm.
Other supported answers may include:
fairness and justice
fair loss distribution
certainty and predictability.
Question 2
A strong response should explain:
Negligence
The fault principle supports negligence because D generally becomes liable only after C proves:
duty
breach
causation.
This prevents liability arising simply because an accident has occurred.
Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability can be criticised because the employer may be held responsible even though another person committed the tort.
This appears to contradict personal fault.
Counterargument
Vicarious liability may nevertheless be justified through:
employer benefit
enterprise risk
insurance
compensation
safer working practices.
The contrast shows that tort law sometimes prioritises broader risk allocation over strict personal blame.
Question 3
A strong response might analyse the standard of care.
The claimant benefits because D must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks.
However, D is protected because the law does not require:
perfect conduct
elimination of all risk.
Factors such as:
likelihood of harm
seriousness
cost of precautions
social utility
permit courts to balance safety against the burden of precautions.
The strength of the system is flexibility.
The weakness is reduced certainty because different judges may balance the factors differently.
Question 4
A strong answer should consider both parties.
Fair to adult visitors
Section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 requires the occupier to take reasonable care to keep a visitor reasonably safe for the permitted purpose.
This gives lawful visitors a consistent level of legal protection.
Fair to occupiers
The standard is not absolute.
Occupiers are required only to act reasonably, rather than guarantee that no visitor will ever be injured.
This protects:
businesses
property owners
socially useful activities
from excessive liability.
Criticism
"Reasonable" is flexible and may create uncertainty.
Different factual circumstances can produce different outcomes.
Conclusion
The standard largely achieves a fair balance because it protects visitors from unreasonable danger without making occupiers insurers of safety, although this fairness comes at some cost to certainty.
Question 5
A strong response should analyse:
Compensation advantage
An employer is generally more likely than an individual employee to:
have financial resources
be insured
satisfy a damages award.
Vicarious liability therefore makes claimant compensation more effective.
Fault criticism
The employer may:
be personally blameless
have trained employees properly
have prohibited the conduct.
Liability therefore conflicts with strict individual fault.
Counterargument
The employer:
creates the work activity
benefits from it
can manage associated risks
may distribute costs.
It can therefore be fair to allocate work-created losses to the enterprise.
Conclusion
The doctrine compromises individual fault, but the compromise can be justified where the tort is sufficiently connected with enterprise-created risk.
Question 6
A strong answer should compare, rather than write two disconnected descriptions.
Negligence
Personal responsibility is central.
D is liable because D has personally fallen below the required standard of reasonable care and caused harm.
C may also be affected by contributory negligence where C contributes to their injuries.
Occupiers’ liability
Occupiers have responsibilities to keep relevant visitors reasonably safe.
However, visitor responsibility is also recognised through:
obvious risks
warnings
skilled visitor rules
contributory negligence
volenti.
Comparison
Both areas reject absolute claimant protection.
Each expects people to take reasonable responsibility for their own conduct.
However, occupiers’ liability operates within the specific relationship between:
a person controlling premises
a person entering those premises.
Conclusion
Both areas balance protection with personal responsibility, although occupiers’ liability contains more specialised statutory rules addressing how those responsibilities are divided.
Question 7
A strong answer should refer to at least two specified areas.
Negligence
Flexibility in:
breach factors
reasonable foreseeability
legal causation
allows courts to respond to the circumstances of individual accidents.
However, flexible standards can reduce predictability.
Occupiers’ liability
"Reasonable care", "reasonably safe" and sufficient warnings allow courts to reflect:
particular premises
particular dangers
particular visitors.
Again, this can create uncertainty.
Vicarious liability
The modern relationship and close-connection tests allow the law to respond to:
modern working structures
non-traditional employment
intentional wrongdoing.
However, employers may find it harder to predict the limits of potential liability.
Conclusion
Flexibility is a significant strength because tort cases arise from highly varied factual circumstances. Nevertheless, it creates tension with certainty. The best balance is achieved where courts use established authorities to guide flexible principles rather than treating every case as completely open-ended.
Question 8
A high-level answer should include sufficient AO1 on factual and legal causation before evaluating fairness.
AO1 foundation
Relevant principles include:
but for test, Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
intervening acts
remoteness under The Wagon Mound (No 1)
eggshell skull principle, Smith v Leech Brain.
OCR's 2024 assessment required this core knowledge before AO3.
But for test
The test can be defended as:
simple
certain
equally applicable.
This supports predictability and prevents D being liable where the breach made no factual difference.
However, the civil standard can create an all-or-nothing result.
A claimant may receive nothing despite clear negligence if causation cannot be established sufficiently.
This protects defendants but can frustrate compensation.
Intervening acts
The law fairly limits liability when another independent cause becomes responsible for the harm.
It prevents D remaining responsible for every event occurring after the initial breach.
However, determining whether an act is sufficiently independent can involve flexible judicial judgement and create uncertainty.
Remoteness
Reasonable foreseeability protects defendants from unlimited responsibility.
It is fair that D should normally pay only for types of harm reasonably connected with the risk created.
However, cases concerning the type, extent and manner of damage can create uncertainty.
Eggshell skull rule
This strongly protects vulnerable claimants because D must take C as found.
A claimant should not receive less because of unusual physical vulnerability.
From D's perspective, however, the final loss may be much greater than anticipated.
Overall judgement
The causation rules largely achieve a fair balance because they ensure D is responsible only for damage factually and legally connected to the breach while preserving strong protection for vulnerable claimants once relevant harm is foreseeable.
Their main weakness is that flexible legal causation rules reduce certainty and factual causation can create harsh all-or-nothing outcomes.
Overall, the law prioritises controlled and fault-based responsibility over guaranteed compensation.
Question 9
A high-level answer should remain focused specifically on adult lawful visitors and occupiers.
AO1 foundation
Relevant law includes:
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
occupier based on control, Wheat v Lacon
broad definition of premises
lawful visitor
common duty of care under sections 2(1) and 2(2)
skilled visitors under section 2(3)(b)
independent contractors under section 2(4)(b)
warnings
relevant defences.
OCR's 2025 mark scheme expected broad AO1 across the Act.
Common duty
The creation of a common duty is fair to visitors because it provides a consistent standard of protection for lawful visitors.
This simplifies the earlier distinctions between visitor categories.
From the occupier's perspective, the standard remains one of reasonable care, so the Act does not impose absolute liability.
This is a strong balance.
Definition of occupier
Wheat v Lacon allows potentially more than one person to be an occupier where there is sufficient control.
This can help an injured visitor identify an appropriate defendant and obtain compensation.
However, because "occupier" is not exhaustively defined by the statute, the need for judicial interpretation may reduce certainty.
Skilled visitors
Section 2(3)(b) permits occupiers to expect skilled visitors to guard against risks associated with their calling.
This is fair to occupiers because they should not be expected to possess greater knowledge of specialist work than the expert.
It may reduce the adult visitor's claim, but responsibility may more appropriately lie with the skilled person themselves or another negligent party.
Independent contractors
Section 2(4)(b) protects occupiers who reasonably entrust specialist work to a competent independent contractor and carry out appropriate checks.
This prevents a blameless occupier automatically carrying responsibility for specialist negligence beyond their expertise.
The visitor may still have a negligence action against the contractor.
This can therefore distribute responsibility fairly.
Warnings and obvious danger
Warnings can allow visitors to make informed choices.
However, an ineffective warning should not automatically discharge the occupier's responsibility.
Equally, occupiers should not be required to warn adults about every obvious risk.
This preserves adult personal responsibility and avoids excessive burdens.
Wider policy
Overly generous liability could:
increase insurance costs
encourage defensive practices
restrict socially useful activities.
Excessively narrow liability could instead leave innocent lawful visitors uncompensated for hazards controlled by the occupier.
Overall conclusion
The Act largely achieves a fair balance because it gives lawful adult visitors a common entitlement to reasonable safety without guaranteeing complete protection from every risk.
The rules on skilled visitors, contractors, warnings and obvious dangers prevent the occupier becoming an insurer of adult behaviour.
The cost is some uncertainty because many concepts depend upon flexible judicial interpretation, but this flexibility also allows the law to reflect differing premises and risks.
Question 10
A high-level answer should evaluate vicarious liability through the aims of tort law rather than merely listing advantages and disadvantages.
AO1 foundation
Relevant principles include:
vicarious liability as liability for the tort of another
relationship requirement
employment status and relationships akin to employment
course of employment
close-connection approach
limits involving true independent contractors and personal frolics.
Compensation
Vicarious liability achieves compensation particularly well.
Employers are generally:
better resourced
insured
able to satisfy substantial damages awards.
Without employer liability, some successful claimants might obtain little compensation from an individual tortfeasor.
Fault and fairness
The doctrine conflicts with strict personal fault because the employer has not necessarily committed the tort.
This may be particularly unfair where D:
recruited responsibly
trained employees
prohibited the conduct.
However, strict individual fault is not the only model of justice.
Enterprise risk
Employers:
organise work
benefit from it
introduce work-related risks.
It can therefore be fair that the enterprise bears losses sufficiently connected with those activities.
Deterrence
Potential liability encourages employers to:
train
supervise
maintain safe working practices.
This supports prevention.
However, deterrence is weaker where a rogue employee commits completely unpredictable personal wrongdoing.
Modern limits
The law does not make employers responsible for everything employees do.
Rules concerning:
true independent contractors
personal frolics
insufficiently close connections
protect employers against unlimited liability.
Loss distribution
Employers and insurers can spread losses more effectively than individual claimants or employees.
This is one of the doctrine's greatest practical strengths.
The counterargument is that costs may ultimately be transferred through:
prices
insurance
wider business expenditure.
Certainty
Modern tests provide flexibility but can produce uncertainty.
This weakens predictability, particularly in unusual employment structures or intentional tort cases.
Overall conclusion
Vicarious liability achieves compensation and loss distribution particularly effectively and can promote safer organisational practice.
Its greatest weakness is its tension with strict individual fault, because a personally blameless employer may bear another person's wrongdoing.
However, the relationship and connection requirements prevent liability becoming unlimited.
Overall, the doctrine is best justified as a system of enterprise responsibility rather than personal blame. It sacrifices some strict fault and certainty in return for more effective compensation and allocation of work-created risks, which creates a broadly defensible balance between claimants, employees and employers.
Comments