Torts for Personal Property and Land

Question 1

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 1

Definition: The intentional interference with the plaintiff’s right to posses person property by either: (1) dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel; (2) using or intermeddling with plaintiff’s chattel; OR (3) damaging the chattel.

Intent: Only requires the intent to do the interfering act. The intent to cause the actual interference at issue is not needed.

Mistake is not a defense.

Damages: Actual damages, damages resulting from lost access, or cost of repair. IF ONLY intermeddling/use then recovery is limited to actual damages.

Question 2

Conversion

Answer 2

Definition: Intentionally committing an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of his chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff entirely of the use of the chattel.

Intent: Must intent to commit the act that causes the interference. Intent to cause the harm is not needed. Mistake is not a defense.

Damages: Recover full value of chattel at time of the conversion.

Question 3

Trespass to Chattel or Conversion? Factors the Court Weighs

Answer 3

• Duration and Extent of Interference
• Defendant’s Good Faith
• Expense or Inconvenience to Plaintiff
• Extent of Harm

[The more extreme, more likely court will find conversion.]

Question 4

Trespass to Land

Answer 4

Definition: Defendant intentionally causes a physical invasion of someone’s land.

Intent: Must only intent to invade the land. Intent to commit trespass is not required. Mistake of fact is not a defense.

Physical Invasion: Includes person or objects used to invade the land.

Rightful Plaintiffs: Anyone in possession of the land can bring the action, not just the owners. (Think tenants).

Damages: Proof of actual damage is not required.

Question 5

Necessity as a Defense to Trespass

Answer 5

Generally, trespass is negated by necessity if done to prevent an injury or other serious harm.

Private Necessity Features

• Defendant pays for actual damages, but is not responsible for nominal damages.
• Landowner may not use force to force to exclude person.

Public Necessity Features

• Occurs when land is invaded to protect large group of people from a public calamity.
• No liability for damages to the property

Question 6

Private Nuisance

Answer 6

Definition: An activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with another’s use and enjoyment of land.

Interference:

Courts are vague on this standard. Consider:

• Must be annoying to the ordinary, reasonable person. Hypersensitive people may not have a cause of action.
• Someone who is not actually bothered, but a reasonable person would be, could still have a cause of action.
• Courts may balance the utility of the nuisance with the annoying outcome.

Not Nuisance

• Blocking or Obstructing Sunlight [UNLESS it is a “Spite Wall”–no other reason for wall except to block neighbor’s view/sunlight.]

Question 7

Defenses to Public Nuisance

Answer 7

• Compliance with state or local administrative regulations [i.e. has a permit to create nuisance]. Not a complete defense as the act causing the nuisance needs to be reasonable.
• “Coming to the Nuisance”–Also not a complete defense; rather it is a factor courts weigh

Question 8

Public Nuisance

Answer 8

Definition: An unreasonable interference with a right common to the public as a whole. [Blocking a highway, or polluting stream]

Public Officials are usually able to bring an action on behalf of the public at large. Private individuals generally cannot recover UNLESS they were harmed in a special or unique way different from the general public.