KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Torts
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2023 Sep Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
KSLU Solved Question Papers
Law of Torts
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 2
2023 Sep Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
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 2023 Sep examination.
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2023 Sep examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2023 Sep 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
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.
Unit I
Answer
For full marks, cover: the definition of tort and of tortious liability (Limitation Act s. 2(m), Salmond, Winfield); how tortious liability differs from contractual liability, with Jay Laxmi Salt Works and Donoghue v. Stevenson; how it differs from criminal liability, with Subramanian Swamy; one three-way comparison table; a case where all three arise together; a conclusion.
A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. It is not merely a breach of contract or of trust. Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act 1963 puts it shortly: a tort is "a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust".
Tortious liability is the liability that arises from committing a tort. Winfield described it as arising from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law. That duty is towards persons generally, and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
Three ideas follow from these definitions. The duty comes from the law, not from agreement. It is owed to people at large, not to a chosen few. And the remedy is compensation fixed by the court. Each idea marks a line between tortious liability and another kind of liability.
The source of the duty. In contract, the parties make their own duties by agreement. In tort, the law imposes the duty, whether or not the parties ever dealt with each other.
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1. The State's reclamation bund flooded and destroyed the appellant's salt works, and the State had been found negligent. There was no contract between them. The Supreme Court explained that tortious duties are fixed by law and owed to persons generally. Contractual duties are fixed by the parties and owed to specified persons. The claim succeeded in tort.
Privity. Only a party to a contract can sue on it. A claim in tort needs no such link. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC 562, a woman whose friend had bought her a bottle of ginger beer fell ill from its contents. She had no contract with the manufacturer, yet he was held to owe her a duty of care in tort.
Damages. Contract damages put the plaintiff where he would have been if the promise had been kept. They are measured under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. Tort damages put him where he was before the wrong.
Motive and consent. A contract cannot exist without consent. Motive is irrelevant to a breach of contract. In tort, consent is not needed to create the duty, and motive matters in a few torts, such as malicious prosecution.
Nature of the wrong. A tort is a wrong to an individual. A crime is a wrong to the community as a whole, even when one person is its victim.
Who acts. In tort the injured person sues, and he may settle or drop the claim. In crime the State prosecutes. Only certain offences can be compounded by the parties.
Purpose and outcome. Tort aims at compensation for the person wronged. Crime aims at punishment, by fine or imprisonment, though a criminal court may also order compensation to the victim.
Proof. A tort is proved on the balance of probabilities. A crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So an acquittal does not bar a civil claim on the same facts.
Both may arise from one act. Defamation is a tort and also an offence under section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of criminal defamation. It held that reputation is part of the right to life, so the criminal remedy stands beside the civil one.
| Basis | Tortious liability | Contractual liability | Criminal liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of the duty | Fixed by law | Fixed by the parties | Fixed by penal law |
| Owed to | Persons generally | The other party | The State and society |
| Who proceeds | The injured person | The other party | The State |
| Aim | Compensation | Value of the promise | Punishment |
| Consent needed | No | Yes | No |
| Standard of proof | Balance of probabilities | Balance of probabilities | Beyond reasonable doubt |
| Basis | Tortious liability | Contractual liability | Criminal liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Settlement | Freely | Freely | Only compoundable offences |
| Main law | Case law, statutes | Indian Contract Act 1872 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 |
A private hospital admits a paying patient for an operation. The surgeon, through gross carelessness, leaves a surgical mop inside her, and she dies.
The same facts in a government hospital led the Supreme Court in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 634, to hold the State liable in tort for the death. A mop had been left inside a woman's abdomen after a sterilisation operation.
Conclusion. Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty fixed by law, owed to people generally, and remedied by unliquidated damages. It differs from contractual liability, whose duties the parties create for themselves, as Jay Laxmi Salt Works explains. It differs from criminal liability, which punishes a public wrong at the State's instance. One act may attract all three, and each proceeding then runs on its own.
The rest of the answers
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.