Trespass to Chattels

Question 1

Conversion

Answer 1

When one not only interfere with possessor’s interest but also with his ownership interest in asserting dominion over property

Question 2

Elements of conversion

Answer 2

1-π must have ownership in the property
2- ∆ has to assert dominion or control over property (intentional)
3. π must have endured damages

Question 3

Considerations for determining whether or not Conversion

Answer 3

1- Extent of duration of defendant’s dominion over the chattel
2- Extent of interference with π’s control
3- Inconvenience or expense caused to π

Question 4

Moore

Answer 4

Mo Cells.

Rule: Commercial use of a patient’s blood or tissue products does not constitute conversion because, once extracted, such products are statutorily no longer the property of the patient

Reigning Precedent- refused to expand the law to include multiple actors. Precedent case.

Fairness- Allowing Moore to press charges would bring about liability with no end

Economic- Strcit liability would result in decreased activity and provide disincentives for researchers from conducting research

Judicial v. Legislative- No need to impose strict liability. Legislature can change the law if there is a need

Question 5

Kremen

Answer 5

Domain name was given away without permission of owner. Not the same policy concerns as in Moore.

Rule: The tort of conversion applies to domain names as an “intangible property”, in the absence of a “merged document representing the owner’s property right.

Reigning Precedent- applying established principles of conversion
Fairness- The act itself is unlawful-it matters not whether you mistakenly think otherwise and perform the action innocently.
Economic- More restrictive rules and regulations
Judicial- no policy concerns. Applying established law.

Question 6

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 6

Interference with possessor’s interest in the chattel where the plaintiff must prove harm.

Unlike trespass to land, there is protection for nominal damages

Question 7

Inte Corp v. Hamidi

Answer 7

Rule: The tort of trespass to chattels does not encompass an electronic communication that neither damages recipients’ computers/e-mailer server no impairs their function.

Court held: While there is some intermeddling with Intel’s chattel no damage has been proven

Question 8

Poggi v. Scott

Answer 8

Rule: Conversion is the unwarranted interference by defendant with the dominion over the property of the plaintiff, which results in damages.

Court held: The foundation for the action of conversion rests neither in the knowledge nor the intent of the defendant. Is rests upon the unwarranted interference by defendant with the dominion over the property of the plaintiff from which injury to the latter results. It makes no difference if defendant acted in good faith or bad faith – with care or with negligence.

Question 9

Gehrts

Answer 9

Rule: If the owner of a domesticated animal knows or has reason to know that the animal has abnormally dangerous propensities, then he may be held liable for negligence.

Court held: not liable. Owner took reasonable care to confine the dog and there was no notice that the dog was aggressive. Reasonable care wouldn’t matter if the owner was on notice. O would be strictly liable for harm.

Question 10

Trespass to Chattels Elements

Answer 10

• The plaintiff owns or has the right to possess the personal property.
• The defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s property without any consent.
• The defendant deprived the plaintiff of possession or use of the property.
• The interference caused damages to the plaintiff.
• The individual dispossess the other of the chattel.
• The condition, quality or value of the chattel is impaired.
• The owner is prevented from using the chattel for a substantial time.
• Bodily harm is caused to the owner or harm is caused to some individual or thing in which the owner has a legally protected interest.