Civil & Tort Law (UK): A Practical Guide with Disability-Focused Case Law

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Civil/tort rules and time limits are technical and fact-sensitive, especially in disability cases where Equality Act duties may apply alongside negligence. If you think you have a claim, seek advice from a qualified solicitor or an advice agency.

🔊 Listen to Post

“Understanding Civil & Tort Law: Rights, Remedies, and Landmark Disability Cases”

In this ‘Practical Guide’, we explore how civil law differs from criminal law, what torts are, how claims work, and landmark UK cases where disabled people’s rights shaped the law, plus the key statutes and time limits you need to know.

1) What is “Civil Law” in the UK?

Civil law governs disputes between people and organisations (e.g., compensation for injury, injunctions to stop harmful conduct, and enforcing contracts). Outcomes are about remedies (money damages, declarations, injunctions), not punishment. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), unlike the criminal standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

2) Where does “Tort” fit?

Tort law is a branch of civil law addressing wrongful acts (other than breach of contract) that cause loss or injury.

It aims to:

• compensate victims,
• allocate risk and set standards of behaviour,
• deter careless or harmful conduct.

Common torts

• Negligence (by far the most litigated)
• Occupiers’ liability (injuries on land/premises)
• Nuisance (substantial and unreasonable interference with land use)
• Trespass to the person (battery/assault/false imprisonment)
• Defamation (serious harm to reputation)
• Product liability (under the Consumer Protection Act 1987)

3) Negligence in a nutshell

To win a negligence claim, a claimant must show:

1. Duty of care (the defendant owed them a legal duty),
2. Breach (the defendant fell below the standard of a reasonable person/professional),
3. Causation (the breach caused the damage—both factual and legal),
4. Damage (loss that is not too remote and is actionable).

Defenses include contributory negligence (reduces damages), volenti (consent), and illegality (rare).

Limitation: Most tort claims must be issued within six years of accrual; personal injury claims generally within three years (with special rules for date of knowledge and long-stop limits).

4) Landmark disability-focused cases in tort & civil law

A. Duty of care must account for foreseeable disabled users of public space

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778: Contractors left a trench in a London pavement with minimal warning. A blind pedestrian fell in and was injured. The House of Lords held that the risk to blind pedestrians was foreseeable, so reasonable precautions (like a barrier) were required. This case is a classic authority that “ordinary” foreseeability includes disabled people who can be expected to use public spaces.

B. The standard of care can rise with a claimant’s known vulnerability

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367: An employee with sight in only one eye was not given goggles and was blinded in his good eye. The employer was liable: where harm would be especially serious for a known vulnerable worker, reasonable care may require greater precautions.

C. Mental health, professional negligence, and the “Bolam test”

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582: A voluntary psychiatric patient underwent ECT and suffered fractures; the court articulated the Bolam standard (a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion). Note: Montgomery later limited Bolam in informed-consent cases, but Bolam still features in clinical negligence on diagnosis/treatment.

D. Mental illness and the reasonable person standard

Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673: A man experiencing acute psychosis (schizophrenia) set himself on fire; the claimant, injured while trying to help, sued. The Court of Appeal held the defendant was judged by the objective reasonable person standard, notwithstanding his mental illness (save where actions are wholly involuntary/automatism).

E. Sudden medical incapacitation while driving: liability turns on awareness

• Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823: Driver who had a stroke but was aware he felt “queer” and kept driving was liable: he retained some control and should have stopped.
• Mansfield v Weetabix [1998] 1 WLR 1263: Lorry driver unknowingly suffered hypoglycemia and crashed; not liable because he had no warning of impairment (distinguished from Roberts). These paired cases are frequently taught together to show when involuntariness defeats negligence.

F. Access to services and civil discrimination duties (public transport)

FirstGroup plc v Paulley [2017] UKSC 4: A wheelchair user couldn’t board a bus because the wheelchair space was occupied by a buggy. The Supreme Court held that bus operators must do more than merely request other passengers to move; drivers must take reasonable steps to secure the space for wheelchair users (a civil claim under the Equality Act rather than classic negligence). The case led to strengthened policy and guidance for accessible bus travel.

5) Equality Act 2010: where discrimination meets civil liability

Outside of tort, many disability disputes proceed under the Equality Act 2010, which consolidated and replaced earlier laws (including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995). Key points:

• Service providers and public bodies have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled users.
• Individuals can bring civil claims (County Court) for discrimination, reasonable adjustment failures, and harassment.

6) Remedies

• Damages (general/special; pain, suffering & loss of amenity; future care; equipment/adaptations)
• Injunctions (to stop ongoing nuisance or require accessibility measures)
• Declarations (e.g., that a policy is discriminatory)
• Costs (court’s discretion; track-dependent)

7) Procedure & time limits (England & Wales)

• Pre-Action Protocols encourage early disclosure and settlement.
• Issue deadlines: generally 6 years in tort; 3 years PI (with “date of knowledge” extensions and long-stop rules for latent damage). For Equality Act discrimination claims in County Court, you normally have 6 months less one day from the act/omission (seek advice promptly).

8) Practical takeaways for disabled claimants and advocates

• In negligence, foreseeability includes disabled users of streets and services (Haley).
• Defendants may need higher precautions where a vulnerability is known (Paris).
• Mental illness does not usually lower the negligence standard (Dunnage), but true involuntariness can defeat liability (contrast Roberts with Mansfield).
• For access barriers and policies, consider Equality Act claims (Paulley) alongside or instead of tort.

Further Reading & Resources

• https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dunnage-v-randall-uk-insurance-ltd.pdf
• https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/mansfield-v-weetabix-ltd
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58
• https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
• https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2015_0025_judgment_48d1a20ed7.pdf
• https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/mansfield-v-weetabix/
• https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/roberts-v-ramsbottom/
• https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dunnage-v-randall-uk-insurance-ltd.pdf
• LawTeacher.net
• https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a938b4360d03e5f6b82c1b9

www.FIRST4LAWYERS.com