Law of Torts: Intentional Torts to Personal Property and Persons

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
Law of Torts
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF TORTS
Issue:
The issue in case is related to the fact that whether Jon and Brienne have any legal
actions against Daenarys and Joffrey. The issue is that whether Brienne can bring a claim of
action against the attending doctor.
Rule:
Intentional torts to personal property can be referred to those which are movable property
for instance goods and chattels. Intentional torts to personal property takes place when there
cause actual damage or destruction to goods. In this regard, the three elements of intentional torts
to personal property can be emphasized. These are:
1. Trespass to goods occurs when there is major damage and destruction of goods.
2. The principle of conversion is applicable when there is total destruction of the goods
concerned.
3. The wrongful detention of goods can be referred to as detinue.
In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, a person can bring action based on
the abovementioned essentials in relation to intentional torts to personal property. Trespass to
property means unlawful possession into someone else’s property without prior permission from
the owner1. It is worth noting that trespass to personal property takes place when an individual
intentionally enters into someone’s property without providing reasonable excuse. In Wheat v.
1 Robbennolt, Jennifer K., and Valerie P. Hans. "The psychology of tort law." Advances in Psychology and Law.
Springer, Cham, 2016. 249-274.

2LAW OF TORTS
Lacon2, it was held that the duty of care lies with the occupier for individuals who enters the
premises providing lawful excuses. However, the occupier is not liable to the visitors for any
accidents. It is important on the part of the visitors to prove that reasonable precautions were not
taken by the occupier to prevent such accident. Similarly, in Dawson -V- Scottish Power Plc3 it
was held by the Court that Scottish Power Plc was liable for the accident caused to an eleven
year old boy when he climbed the fence which was electrocuted. It was held by the Court that
the occupier is responsible for the accident even though the trespasser has not obtained prior
permission from the occupier. Therefore, in Tomlinson -V- Congleton4 it was observed that the
plaintiff was seriously injured when he dived into a pool by ignoring the signs of danger. It was
observed that the defendants stated in their defense that the plaintiff was a trespasser and
therefore the occupiers of the land do not owe duty to him.
It is important to note here that there exist intentional torts to person as well. In this
regard, the three different forms of trespasser interferences can be stated which includes- trespass
to persons, trespass to land and trespass to goods or properties. It is noteworthy to state here that
under the Australian Tort Law, trespass to persons is associated with intention. Intentional
trespass to persons takes place in three ways- battery, assault and false imprisonment5. The tort
of assault is an act of intention which creates fear in the mind of a person regarding the harmful
nature of the contract. In Zanker v Vartzokis (1988) 34 A Crim R6 11 it was held that there can
be tort of intentional assault even if no reasonable apprehension of force occurs. Similarly, it was
2 [1966] AC 552.
3 [1999-SL1].
4 [2003] UKHL 47.
5 Goudkamp, James, and John Murphy. "The failure of universal theories of tort law." Legal Theory 21.2 (2015): 47-
85.
6 (1988) 34 A Crim R