KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Torts
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2015 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 2 Law of Torts 2015 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Bring out the importance of mental elements in tort.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the mental element means and the states of mind it includes; how tort differs from crime on this point; why the mental element matters (it defines some torts, decides some defences, and affects damages); torts that need intention or knowledge (Derry v. Peek, Wilkinson v. Downton); malice in law and in fact (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goverdhanlal Pitti); motive and its limited role (Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, Christie v. Davey); negligence as a standard of conduct (Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., Jacob Mathew); torts where the state of mind does not matter (Hollins v. Fowler, E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones, Rylands v. Fletcher, M.C. Mehta); the mental element in defences (Stanley v. Powell, Brown v. Kendall); a table; a conclusion.
Meaning
The mental element in a tort is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. The law recognises several such states:
- Intention, where the defendant desires a result or knows that it is certain to follow.
- Recklessness, where he is aware of a risk and goes on regardless, not caring whether harm results.
- Negligence, where he fails to take the care a reasonable person would take.
- Malice, either ill will (malice in fact) or a wrongful act done on purpose without just cause (malice in law).
- Motive, the reason that led him to act.
- Knowledge of a fact, such as the falsity of a statement.
Tort and crime compared
In criminal law a guilty mind is, as a rule, an essential part of an offence. The criminal law punishes, and punishment needs blame. The law of torts mainly compensates. It looks at the harm suffered by the plaintiff as much as at the defendant's fault. So a guilty mind is not a general requirement in tort. Some torts need a particular state of mind, many need only negligence, and some need none at all.
That does not make the mental element unimportant. It matters in three ways:
- it is an essential ingredient of several torts;
- it decides whether certain defences succeed; and
- it affects the damages, because a deliberate or malicious wrong may attract aggravated damages, and in limited cases exemplary damages.
Torts that need intention or knowledge
1. Deceit. The defendant must make a false statement knowing it to be false, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly. In Derry v. Peek, (1889) 14 App Cas 337, a company's prospectus said that it could use steam power on its tramways. In fact the Board of Trade's consent was still needed, and it was later refused. The directors honestly believed the statement. The House of Lords held them not liable in deceit. Lord Herschell explained that carelessness without dishonesty is not fraud. Here the state of mind decided the case.
2. Intentional infliction of harm. In Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 QB 57, the defendant, as a practical joke, falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been badly hurt in an accident. She suffered a violent nervous shock with lasting effects. He was held liable for a wilful act calculated to cause her harm, which did cause it.
3. Trespass. Trespass to the person, land or goods requires that the act be voluntary and intended, though the defendant need not intend any harm. A person who walks onto land believing it to be his own still commits trespass.
4. Malicious prosecution and conspiracy. Malicious prosecution needs malice, meaning an improper motive in setting the law in motion. Conspiracy by lawful means needs a combination whose real purpose is to injure the plaintiff.
Malice in law and malice in fact
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739, the Supreme Court explained the two senses of malice. Malice in fact is ill will or spite, or an indirect or improper motive. Malice in law is something done wrongfully and wilfully, without lawful excuse or reasonable cause, and it need not involve ill feeling. The Court added that malice alleged against the State can only be malice in law.
Most torts need no malice at all. Where malice is required, as in malicious prosecution and malicious falsehood, it is malice in fact. In defamation, malice in fact defeats the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege.
Motive
As a general rule, motive is irrelevant in tort. A lawful act does not become wrongful because it is done from a bad motive. In Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587, Pickles sank shafts on his own land that cut off percolating water feeding the Corporation's reservoir. He was said to have done it to force the Corporation to buy his land. He was not liable, because no one has a right to percolating water, so his motive did not matter.
There are exceptions. Motive matters where malice is an element of the tort, as in conspiracy and malicious prosecution. It also matters in nuisance, where it may make an interference unreasonable. In Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch 316, a neighbour banged on the wall and beat trays whenever the plaintiffs played music. An injunction was granted because he did it only to annoy.
Negligence: a standard of conduct
Negligence is the most common basis of liability. In Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., (1856) 11 Ex 781, Alderson B. defined it as omitting to do what a reasonable man would do, or doing what a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The Supreme Court adopted the same idea in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, naming duty, breach and resulting damage as its components.
The test is objective. The court asks what a reasonable person would have done, not what the defendant actually thought. A defendant who did his honest best is still liable if his best fell below the standard. So negligence is better described as a failure to reach a standard than as a state of mind.
Torts where the state of mind does not matter
- Conversion. In Hollins v. Fowler, (1875) LR 7 HL 757, a cotton broker bought cotton in good faith and resold it. He did not know it had been wrongfully obtained from the owners. He was liable in conversion. Innocence was no defence.
- Defamation. In E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones, [1910] AC 20, a newspaper sketch described the conduct of a fictitious "Artemus Jones". A real barrister of that name sued. The paper was liable, because the test is whether readers would reasonably take the words to refer to the plaintiff, not what the writer intended.
- Strict liability. In Rylands v. Fletcher, as cited by the Supreme Court of India, the defendants' reservoir flooded the plaintiff's mine through old shafts their contractors had not blocked. The defendants were liable though they themselves were not negligent.
- Absolute liability. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, oleum gas escaped from a factory in Delhi. The Supreme Court held that an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity is absolutely liable for harm from an accident in it. None of the exceptions to the rule in Rylands is available.
- Vicarious liability. An employer is liable for an employee's tort in the course of employment, whatever the employer's own state of mind.
The mental element in defences
- Inevitable accident. In Stanley v. Powell, [1891] 1 QB 86, a pellet from the defendant's gun glanced off a tree at a shoot and struck the plaintiff. The jury found no negligence, and the defendant was not liable. An accident that could not have been avoided by reasonable care is a defence, even to trespass.
- Unintended harm from a lawful act. In Brown v. Kendall, (1850) 60 Mass. 292, the defendant raised a stick to part two fighting dogs and accidentally hit the plaintiff in the eye. The court held that, for an unintended injury from a lawful act, the plaintiff must prove want of ordinary care.
- Mistake is generally no defence, as Hollins v. Fowler shows. Honest belief may still help a defendant in malicious prosecution, where reasonable and probable cause is in issue.
At a glance
| Mental element | Where it matters | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge or recklessness | Deceit | Derry v. Peek |
| Intention to cause harm | Intentional infliction of harm | Wilkinson v. Downton |
| Malice in fact | Malicious prosecution; conspiracy; defeats privilege | Goverdhanlal Pitti |
| Motive | Usually irrelevant; relevant in nuisance | Bradford v. Pickles; Christie v. Davey |
| Mental element | Where it matters | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Negligence (objective) | Most accident cases | Blyth; Jacob Mathew |
| None | Conversion; defamation; strict and absolute liability | Hollins v. Fowler; Hulton v. Jones; M.C. Mehta |
Conclusion. A guilty mind is not a general requirement in tort, because the law of torts aims chiefly to compensate. Its importance lies elsewhere. It is an essential ingredient of deceit, intentional harm, malicious prosecution and conspiracy, as Derry v. Peek and Wilkinson v. Downton show. It decides defences such as inevitable accident. It also raises damages where the wrong was deliberate. Motive is usually irrelevant, as Bradford Corporation v. Pickles holds, and negligence is judged objectively. In conversion, defamation and strict and absolute liability, the defendant's state of mind does not matter at all.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 2 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.