Nirma University

Institute of Law
Continuous Evaluation, October 2021
BA.LLB./B.Com LL.B. (Hons.)
Semester I
Course Code- 2BL132
Course Name- Law of Tort including Consumer Protection Laws and M.V. Act

Roll/Exam Supervisor’s Initial with date

No.

Time: 1 Hour 30 Minutes Max. Marks : 40

Instructions: 1. Attempt all questions.
2. Figures to right indicate full marks.
3. The word limit for writing answers has been mentioned with each
question.

Q.1 Wonder Milk, is a popular company engaged in the business of (15)

supply of milk in Belve l, Canada. Mr. Mann, (plaintiff) and other
employees whom the Company employed to deliver milk were
supplied with steel-toe capped boots, to protect against injury,
especially due to frostbite. As per company rules, these boots
were “personal protective equipment” (PPE) which the Employer
was duty bound to provide to his employees who may be
exposed to a risk to their health or safety while at work, except
where and to the extent that such risk has been adequately
controlled by other means which are equally or more effective.
The employer was under a duty to ensure the maintenance,
including replacement or cleaning, at regular intervals of these
PPE provided to the employees. It was also the duty of the
employee to bring to the notice of the Company, in case there
was any defect or other issue with the PPE that they noticed.

Page 1 of 4
 One day while on duty, his milk tanker got stuck in a snowdrift.
He attempted to dig it out. He contracted frostbite in his toe,
because of a small hole in one of the boots, which allowed
penetration of the freezing water. He claimed that his employers
had failed to maintain in good repair, and that the defendant
Company was liable for his frostbitten toe. The employers has
not asked for a replacement or repair of the pair of boots for a
long time.
On the basis of the facts given, discuss the point of law in issue
and substantiate your arguments with logical reasons and case
las/illustrations.
(Word Limit: 600-700 words)

Q. 2 Discuss the principle of tort law involved in the following (10)

question and support your answers with relevant case laws:
(Word Limit: 500-600 words)

Joyland- a kindergarten school was established in 2015 in

Bopal, Ahmedabad by one Mr. Shroff. He doesn’t belong to
Ahmedabad, but whenever he visits to check upon the school’s
regular business, he stays with his sister, Ms. Sunita Shroff,
who owns a bunglow in Bopal, Ahmedabad. Bopal is
predominantly a posh residential area of affluent families. Due
to outbreak of Covid-19, the school was closed and has only
resumed since July, 2021. Ms. Minnie has been discreetly
running a high class intimate massage and escort agency in
Bopal (a property opposite Joyland) for the past 15 months.
Around 4 to 7 men/women visit the premises daily, but these
are all respectable professionals who conduct themselves in an
orderly manner. From outside , the premises owned by Ms.

Page 2 of 4
 Minne resembles an ordinary residential house. Whether, Mr.
Shroff has a rightful claim of nuisance against Ms. Minne?
Discuss.

Q.3 Aman and Shashank, students at a principal Law University in (5+5+5=15)

Ahmedabad, decided to spend their semester break vacations at
Mount Abu, about 225 KMs from Ahmedabad. They left for the
trip on 21, July, 2021 by road on a rented car with driver.
Shashank had been repeatedly asking the driver to drive fast to
the Hotel as he was desperately waiting to go for sightseeing.
While they were about to cross a bridge to reach the hotel, it
started to rain very heavily, though it was very common for
Mount Abu to witness such rains. Due to a sudden landslide,
the bridge gave way and debris emanating from the landslide
caused damage to their car, as a consequence of which Aman
and Shashank were severely injured. It was found that the
bridge had not been repaired for the last ten years by the
Municipal Authority and the news of the bad condition of the
bridge had been doing rounds in the media for quite some time.
Based on the facts discuss?
A. Whether Aman and Shashank have any claim against the
Municipal Corporation?
B. Which is an appropriate defence that the Municipal
Authorities may take in this case?
C. Whether Novus Actus Interveniens is applicable? If yes,
against whom and why?
(Word Limit: 600-700)

Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4