Law of Torts: Case Study Analysis of Intentional Torts and Liabilities

This case study delves into the complexities of intentional torts, analyzing potential legal actions for Jon and Brienne against Daenarys and Joffrey, as well as Brienne's claim against the attending doctor. It examines the elements of intentional torts to personal property, trespass to property, and intentional torts to persons, including battery, assault, and false imprisonment. The analysis incorporates relevant case law such as Wheat v. Lacon and Zanker v Vartzokis, while also considering affirmative defenses like necessity, consent, and lack of intent. The study concludes that Jon and Brienne have grounds to bring claims of action, and Brienne may also pursue a claim against the doctor, highlighting the intricacies of establishing liability and the potential for defendants to escape liability through valid defenses. Desklib provides students with access to this case study along with a wealth of other solved assignments and past papers.

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

3LAW OF TORTS
held in R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 4677 that an unconscious person in any way cannot be
assaulted.
It is noteworthy to mention here that various affirmative defenses are available on the
grounds of intentional torts to property8. These affirmative defenses can be emphasized are
necessity consent, self-defense, defense of property, lack of intent and assumption of risk9. In
tort, liability can be avoided in certain cases if there was prior consent between the claimant and
the defendant. However, liability in tort can be avoided if the defendant had knowledge an act on
his part could possibly harm others. In order to avoid liability, it is essential for the defendant to
claim in his defense that there was no intention to harm the claimant; the presence of others
factors may have caused injury or damage to the claimant10.
Application:
In the present case study, it can be observed that Brienne collided with “The Knives” at
the store and as a result of it suffered serious stab injury. It can be stated that such collision was
as result of intentional tort on the part of Daenarys and Joffrey. It can be stated that both
Daenarys and Joffrey knew that the nature of the abstract art piece- “The Knives’ was such
which was likely to cause serious injury to persons. The case of Wheat v. Lacon can be applied
in this regard because in the present case study both Jon and Brienne has entered the store with
lawful consent. Therefore, it can be stated that the occupiers of the store is liable for the accident
caused to the visitors, however, it is important on the part of the occupiers to take reasonable
precautions in order to prevent accidents. In this regard, it is noteworthy to state here that
7 (1971) 45 ALJR 467
8 Butler, Des. "The dawn of the age of the drones: An Australian privacy law perspective." UNSWLJ 37 (2014): 434.
9 Fortney, Susan Saab. "A Tort in Search of a Remedy: Prying Open the Courthouse Doors for Legal Malpractice
Victims." Fordham L. Rev. 85 (2016): 2033.
10 Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016.

4LAW OF TORTS
Brienne has an opportunity to bring a claim of action against Joffrey and Daenarys on the ground
of intentional tort against persons. However, in this regard, both Joffrey and Daenarys in order to
escape their liability towards the damages caused to Brienne can state based on the grounds of
affirmative defenses that their intention was not to harm any visitors of the store and therefore
they could not assume the nature of the risk.
In the present case study, it can be observed that Jon accidentally slips when using the
store’s bathroom and knocks unconscious. It was seen that Daenarys locks the bathroom door
when Jon was still inside. Due to this reason Jon can bring a claim of action against Daenarys
that she locked the bathroom door having prior knowledge that Jon was still inside. Is is evident
that Jon was not a trespasser as he visited the store with legal and reasonable permission from
both Daenarys and Joffrey, the storekeepers. However, in this regard, Daenarys based on the
grounds of affirmative defenses can claim that she was not aware of the fact that Jon was inside
the batroom when she locked the door. Therefore, in this way Daenarys can escape her liability
to the injury caused to Jon if she is able to prove her defense on the ground of lack of intent.
In the present scenario, it can be witnessed that Brienne has undergone significant
amount of blood loss and as a result of which she was given blood transfusion. However,
according to her religious beliefs she is not supposed to go blood transfusion and if she knew that
this would happen she would not have given consent. It was also established in R v Phillips that
an unconscious person cannot be assaulted. Therefore, she can bring a claim of action against the
attending doctor for intentional tort for not taking her consent prior the process of blood
transfusion. In this regard, the doctor could escape liability by stating in his defense that he has
committed the act without knowing that it would harm Brienne and that he was not aware of her

5LAW OF TORTS
religious belief. However, the doctor may also claim that though there was an absence of prior
consent, he did intent to cause reasonable harm to Brienne.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be stated that there exists an issue of intentional tort and
therefore both Jon and Brienne is at the authority to bring claim of action against Daenarys and
Joffrey. It can be finally concluded that Brienne can bring a claim of action against the doctor.

6LAW OF TORTS
References:
Cases:
Dawson –v- Scottish Power Plc [1999-SL1].
R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47.
Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552.
Zanker v Vartzokis (1988) 34 A Crim R.
Journals anf Books:
Butler, Des. "The dawn of the age of the drones: An Australian privacy law
perspective." UNSWLJ 37 (2014): 434.
Fortney, Susan Saab. "A Tort in Search of a Remedy: Prying Open the Courthouse Doors for
Legal Malpractice Victims." Fordham L. Rev. 85 (2016): 2033.
Goudkamp, James, and John Murphy. "The failure of universal theories of tort law." Legal
Theory 21.2 (2015): 47-85.
Robbennolt, Jennifer K., and Valerie P. Hans. "The psychology of tort law." Advances in
Psychology and Law. Springer, Cham, 2016. 249-274.
Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016.

7LAW OF TORTS