📚 Year 13 Cambridge Law Formula & Principle Quick Reference Handbook | Year 13 剑桥法律公式定理速查手册
This quick reference handbook distils the core legal principles, tests, and rules for Year 13 Cambridge A-Level Law (9084) into concise, formula-like statements. Use it to sharpen your analysis and confidently apply the law to scenario questions. Each ‘formula’ captures an essential element or defence that you must memorise and use accurately in exams.
本速查手册将 Year 13 剑桥 A-Level 法律（9084）的核心法律原则、检验标准和规则提炼为简洁的“公式”化表述，帮助你在案例分析中精准运用。每条“公式”都概括了必须记忆并准确使用的构成要件或抗辩事由。
1. Duty of Care – Caparo Three-Stage Test | 注意义务 – Caparo 三段检验
The test for establishing a novel duty of care in negligence is the Caparo test: (1) Foreseeability of damage, (2) Proximity between the parties, and (3) It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
在过失侵权中确立新型注意义务的检验标准是 Caparo 三段检验：(1) 损害的可预见性；(2) 当事人之间的密切关联性；(3) 施加注意义务是公平、公正且合理的。
Key case: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]. The court looks at whether the harm to the claimant was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct, whether there is a sufficient relationship of proximity, and whether policy considerations support a duty.
关键判例：Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]。法院考量原告的损害是否为被告行为的可预见后果、双方是否存在足够密切的关系、以及政策因素是否支持施加义务。
2. Breach of Duty – Reasonable Man Formula | 违反注意义务 – 理性人公式
Breach = Defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of the reasonable man in the same circumstances. The court considers: (a) likelihood of harm, (b) seriousness of the risk, (c) cost and practicability of precautions, and (d) any social utility of the defendant’s activity.
违反义务 = 被告的行为低于同等情形下理性人的标准。 法院会考量：(a) 损害发生的可能性；(b) 风险的严重程度；(c) 采取预防措施的成本和可行性；(d) 被告行为的社会效用。
Tested in Bolton v Stone (low likelihood), Paris v Stepney Borough Council (seriousness), Latimer v AEC Ltd (practicality), Watt v Hertfordshire CC (social utility). Special standards apply to children, learners, and professionals.
检验标准见 Bolton v Stone（低可能性）、Paris v Stepney Borough Council（严重性）、Latimer v AEC Ltd（可行性）、Watt v Hertfordshire CC（社会效用）。对儿童、学习者和专业人士适用特别标准。
3. Causation – Factual and Legal Formula | 因果关系 – 事实与法律公式
Factual causation: ‘But for’ the defendant’s breach, would the claimant have suffered the damage? (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital). Legal causation: The breach must be a more than minimal cause of the damage, i.e., substantial and operative. No intervening act (novus actus interveniens) must break the chain.
事实因果关系：“若非”被告的过失，原告是否会遭受损害？（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital）。法律因果关系：过失必须是损害的不止是微小原因，即实质性且有效的原因。 不得有介入行为（新介入行为）打断因果链条。
Multiple causes: Wilsher v Essex AHA (material contribution to harm not enough if several possible causes). For medical uncertainty, Bailey v Ministry of Defence allows material contribution to the injury itself in special circumstances.
多因：Wilsher v Essex AHA（若存在多个可能原因，仅对损害有实质贡献不足够）。对于医疗不确定性，Bailey v Ministry of Defence 在特殊情况下允许对伤害本身的实质贡献。
4. Remoteness of Damage – Wagon Mound Formula | 损害遥远性 – Wagon Mound 公式
Damage is not too remote if it is of a type that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach. The exact extent or manner need not be foreseeable, only the kind of damage.
若损害类型在过失发生时是可合理预见的，则非过于遥远。 无须预见确切程度或方式，只要损害类别可预见即可。
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) No 1 [1961]: oil spill damage by fire was not foreseeable, only fouling damage, so fire damage too remote. The ‘egg-shell skull’ rule applies: you take your victim as you find them (Smith v Leech Brain).
The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961]：火灾损害不可预见，仅船体污损可预见，故火灾损害过于遥远。但“薄壳脑袋”规则适用：被告须接受受害者的特殊体质（Smith v Leech Brain）。
5. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 – Lawful Visitor Formula | 1957 年占有人责任法 – 合法访客公式
Occupier owes a ‘common duty of care’ to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose. Section 2(2): The duty is to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable.
占有人负有“一般注意义务”确保访客在许可目的范围内使用场地时合理安全。 第 2(2) 条：义务是在所有情况下采取合理的注意。
Child visitors: occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful (s2(3)(a)). Special risks: if an occupier has warning of a specific danger, he may expect a skilled visitor to guard against it (s2(3)(b)). Defences: consent, contributory negligence.
儿童访客：占有人应预见儿童较不谨慎（第 2(3)(a) 条）。特殊风险：若占有人已对特定危险发出警告，可期望有技能的访客自行防范（第 2(3)(b) 条）。抗辩：同意、共同过失。
6. Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 – Trespasser Formula | 1984 年占有人责任法 – 侵入者公式
A duty is owed to a trespasser if: (1) the occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists; (2) knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger; and (3) the risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection. (s1(3))
对侵入者负有义务，若：(1) 占有人知悉危险或有合理理由相信其存在；(2) 知道或有合理理由相信侵入者处于危险附近；(3) 该风险是合理期待占有人提供某种保护的风险。（第 1(3) 条）
Duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury (s1(4)). Warnings may discharge the duty. No duty to make premises safe for trespassers; no liability for property damage.
义务是在所有情形下采取合理注意避免侵入者受伤（第 1(4) 条）。警告可免除义务。无义务使场所对侵入者安全；不赔偿财产损失。
7. Private Nuisance – Balancing Formula | 私人妨害 – 利益平衡公式
Private nuisance = an unreasonable use of one’s land that substantially interferes with another’s use or enjoyment of their land. The court balances competing interests using factors: nature of locality, duration, frequency, sensitivity of the claimant, malice, and public benefit.
私人妨害 = 不合理使用自己的土地，实质性干扰他人使用或享用其土地。 法院通过考量以下因素来平衡相互冲突的利益：地区性质、持续时间、频率、原告的敏感性、恶意以及公共效益。
Key cases: Sturges v Bridgman (locality), Halsey v Esso Petroleum (duration and frequency), Robinson v Kilvert (abnormal sensitivity), Christie v Davey (malice). The interference must be substantial, not trivial.
关键判例：Sturges v Bridgman（地区性质）、Halsey v Esso Petroleum（持续时间和频率）、Robinson v Kilvert（异常敏感性）、Christie v Davey（恶意）。干扰必须达到实质性程度，而非轻微。
8. Rylands v Fletcher – Strict Liability Formula | Rylands v Fletcher – 严格责任公式
Strict liability arises where: (1) the defendant brings onto his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes; (2) it is a non-natural use of the land; (3) the thing escapes and causes damage. (Rule in Rylands v Fletcher)
出现严格责任的情形：(1) 被告将其带到土地上、一旦逸出很可能造成损害之物；(2) 构成土地的非自然使用；(3) 该物逸出并造成损害。（Rylands v Fletcher 规则）
Non-natural use is a special use bringing with it increased danger to others, not an ordinary use of land (Rickards v Lothian). Defences: consent, act of a stranger, act of God, statutory authority, contributory negligence. The rule has been partly subsumed into nuisance.
非自然使用是带来额外风险的特殊使用，而非普通土地用途（Rickards v Lothian）。抗辩：同意、陌生人行为、天灾、法定权限、共同过失。该规则已部分被妨害法吸收。
9. Assault and Battery – Trespass to the Person Formulas | 威胁与殴打 – 人身侵权公式
Assault = an intentional act causing the claimant reasonably to apprehend immediate and direct unlawful force. Words alone can be assault; silence may suffice if accompanied by a menacing gesture. Battery = the intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person.
威胁 = 一项故意行为，使原告合理地担心即将遭受直接且非法的暴力。 言语本身可构成威胁；若伴随威胁性姿势，沉默亦可。 殴打 = 故意且直接地对他人施加非法暴力。
Hostility not required; any unwanted touching suffices (Collins v Wilcock). Consent is a defence. The touching must be direct; indirect contact may still be battery (e.g., throwing a stone).
无须敌意；任何未经同意的接触均足够（Collins v Wilcock）。同意是抗辩。接触必须是直接的；间接接触亦可构成殴打（如投掷石块）。
10. False Imprisonment – Complete Restraint Formula | 非法拘禁 – 完全限制公式
False imprisonment = the intentional and complete restraint of the claimant’s freedom of movement within an area without lawful justification. The restraint must total; if there is a reasonable means of escape, no false imprisonment is committed.
非法拘禁 = 在没有合法理由的情况下，故意且完全限制原告在一定区域内的行动自由。 限制必须是完全的；若存在合理的逃脱途径，则不构成非法拘禁。
The claimant need not have resisted; it is enough that they submitted to the defendant’s power. Example: locking a person in a room, or preventing them from leaving by a threat of force. Bird v Jones (partial obstruction not sufficient).
原告无需反抗；只要其屈从于被告的强制力即可。例如将人锁在房间，或以暴力威胁阻止其离开。Bird v Jones（部分阻碍不构成非法拘禁）。
11. Defences in Tort – Consent (Volenti) Formula | 侵权抗辩 – 同意公式
Volenti non fit injuria = no wrong is done to one who consents. The defendant must show that the claimant freely and voluntarily consented to the risk of harm, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk. Consent operates as a complete defence.
Volenti non fit injuria（自愿者不受害）= 经同意者不构成损害。 被告须证明原告在完全了解风险性质和程度的情况下，自由且自愿地同意承受损害风险。同意是完整的抗辩。
Limit: consent is ineffective in road traffic cases due to Road Traffic Act 1988. Consent can be express or implied. Rescuers are generally not volens because they act under moral or legal compulsion.
限制：因《1988 年道路交通法》，在道路交通案件中的同意无效。同意可明示或默示。救援者通常不构成自愿，因其出于道德或法律义务而行。
12. Contributory Negligence – Damages Reduction Formula | 共同过失 – 赔偿削减公式
Contributory negligence = claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and this failure contributed causally to the damage suffered. The court may reduce damages by such proportion as is just and equitable (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945).
共同过失 = 原告未能对其自身安全尽合理注意，且该过失对所受损害有因果贡献。 法院可依公正公平的比例削减损害赔偿（《1945 年法律改革（共同过失）法》）。
Example: claimant not wearing seatbelt (Froom v Butcher), or crossing road without looking. Applies in negligence, nuisance, and Occupiers’ Liability. The burden is on the defendant to plead and prove contributory negligence.
例如：原告未系安全带（Froom v Butcher），或穿越马路时未察看。适用于过失侵权、妨害和占有人责任。被告须主张并证明共同过失。
Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导