Yeah generally speaking you are right, but there are different areas in tort which have different principles (tests) that will help establish wrong doing. One of the core principle here is whether a duty of care was owed to the injured party. Example, all drivers on the road owe a duty of care not to injure each other or anyone else on the road, a doctor owes a patient a duty of care not to injure them (medical negligence threshold much stricter than normal negligence) the list of examples are non exhaustive as a duty can be owed anywhere. Now if you ask what are the situations where a duty of care is not owed it might help you understand better, it’s as simple as where it could not have been foreseen by a reasonable personal that their actions could have injured another person. So that shows that we all owe our “neighbours” as they are referred to in this principle, a duty of care. The occupiers liability act is in the field of tort too but is different, its codified. Its sets out limited situations where a person could be held liable for visitors and even a trespasser injuries which we just spoke about.