Torts

What is an intentional tort?

Liability turns on whether the defendant intended the wrong or harm and the legally relevant consequence, not just the voluntary movement that produced it 

What are the global intent rules?

1. A Defendant Acts Intentionally if the Defendant Acts:

• With the purpose of causing the consequence of their act; OR

• Knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result 

2. What does purpose mean? 

• D wanted the conduct to happen. 

3. What does substantial certainty mean? 

• D actually knew that the conduct would happen. 

4. Transferred Intent: 

• When D intends to commit an intentional tort against one person but commits an intentional tort against a different person

• Ex: Jake Peralta wants to win the Halloween Heist. He throws a punch to hit Captain Holt so he cannot continue the heist. Jake misses and hits Charles Boyle. Now Jake has committed a battery against Boyle. 

• This does not transfer between people and land 

5. Children and Mentally Incompetent 

• In most jurisdictions, neither a minor nor a mentally impaired individual is excluded from liability for an intentional tort 

6. Mistake 

• A good faith mistake does not negate intent if the contact was still intended.

  • Why? D still intended to make contact. 

• Ranson v. Kittner - D thought it was a wolf and wanted to shoot it→ shot it →  turned out to be a dog. D made a good-faith mistake, but still intended to shoot. (battery) 

What is a battery? and what is its policy purpose?

• Definition: Battery occurs when D intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with P

Checklist for Battery

1. Did D intend it?

2. Did D want to do it? D wanted to make contact 

3. Did D know or want to make harmful contact?

What are the rules for Battery?

1. Two Ways to Prove Intent:

   1. Purpose: D wanted it to happen 

   • Single Intent: D wanted the contact to happen  (P’s fav bc its easier to prove) 

   • Dual Intent: D wanted the contact to happen, and D wanted the contact to be harmful or offensive (D’s fav bc its harder to prove) 

   2. Substantial Certainty: D actually knew it would happen

   • Purpose: D may want some other result but actually knows that the legally relevant consequence is virtually certain to occur

   • This is subjective 

   • Helpful Tip: on the exam, look to see if Prof tells us the jurisdiction intent rule; if it does not, argue both but get the court to agree with one

   Contact: 

   1. Harmful Contact: 

   • Contact that causes physical impairment, physical pain, or illness

   • Ex: Eric punches Kyle, causing pain 

   2. Offensive Contact 

   • Contact that would offend a reasonable person’s sense of personal dignity under the circumstances. 

   • It must exceed the contact ordinarily permitted by social custom

   • Objective is usually the main test, but it can be subjective if D knows that P would find the contact offensive 

     • Ex: Eric spits on Kyle (objective)

     • Ex: Kyle gives Eric a hotdog knowing how offensive it is considering Eric just lost his home and now lives in a hotdog 

   3. P does not need to be aware of the contact when it occurs to recover

   • Ex: while in surgery for their nose, they also operated on the ear without the patient's consent 

   4. Indirect contact is enough 

   • Ex: D throws a rock that hits P

   5. Anything Connected to P’s Person (Fisher) 

   • Note: Lack of contact (direct or indirect) is not a battery 

Battery - Garratt v. Dailey: Facts and Rule

• Facts: Dailey pulled a chair from Garratt. Dailey did not know this would cause harm and tried to move it back. 

• Rule: Children can be liable for a battery if they have the mental capacity to want or know that harmful or offensive contact would occur. This case is an exception since Dailey did not actually know moving the chair would cause harm.

Battery - Fisher v. Carousel Motor Hotel: Facts and Rule

• Facts: The manager told Fisher he doesn't belong there and grabbed his plate, humiliating him in front of his coworkers. 

• Rule: Intentional offensive contact with something closely connected to a person counts as a harmful contact. 

Battery - Wagner v. State: Facts and Rule

• Facts: Rosen touched Wallace to move out of the way so they could do a fire drill. 

• Rule: Battery does not cover everyday, socially acceptable contacts - only contacts that a reasonable person would find offensive.

Battery - Ranson v. Kittner Facts and Rule

• Facts: D was out hunting for wolves, saw one, and wanted to shoot it. D shot it, and the wolf turned out to be a dog. D argued that this was a good-faith mistake, so it could not constitute battery

• Rule: The court found that a good-faith mistake does not negate intent if the contact was still intended. D wanted to shoot the “wolf”

Battery - Wallace v. Rosen: Facts and Rule

• Facts: Gieuse grabbed Wagner’s hair and threw her to the ground in a grocery store while out with his essentially “caregivers” 

• Rule: Mentally disabled people can be held liable for a battery, and it shows a single-intent rule in motion.

Battery - McGuire v. Almy: Facts and Rule

• Facts: A mentally insane person hits McGuire with a bat and threatens to kill McGuire. 

• Issue: Whether legal insanity overcomes intent. 

• Rule: If a legally insane person causes intentional damage to the person or property of another, they are liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be liable. 

Battery requires an act with intent to cause harm to another person.

What is assault?

Defendant intentionally causes Plaintiff to anticipate imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Assault checklist

1. What did D intend?

2. Was P aware of the threatened contact?

3. Was the anticipated contact imminent?

4. Was the anticipated contact harmful or offensive?

What are the rules for assault?

• You must prove two things: intent and apprehension of harmful or offensive contact 

• Intent can be provided in either consequence: 

1. Failed Battery Or 

2. D wanted/knew P would apprehend contact 

   1. Intent can be transferred 

   2. Mere words are not enough to show intent. Look for words coupled with other acts of circumstance. 

      1. Ex: an individual sneaks up behind you in a dark alley and says, " Your money or your life. Street smarts!

      2. But words can negate intent:

         1. Ex: someone who is your friend joking says they are going to smack you. You know they are joking and do not reasonably believe they will hit you. 

• Apprehension (expect immediate physical harm or unwanted touch): 

1. P must be aware of D’s contact 

• Note the difference from battery where P does not have to be aware 

• D points a gun at sleeping P → no assault 

• D swings at P from behind → no assault 

• P sees D’s fist a split second before it lands → batt AND assault 

• P learns afterward that D had aimed a gun at P → no assault

2. Apprehended contact must be battery-like contact 

• Being grabbed, punched, spit on, kissed, horse kicked (while P is on it), etc. 

• Reputational, economic, or property injuries are not enough 

3. Apprehension does not mean fear. It needs to be reasonable 

• A fearless boxer can be assaulted

• A child can assault an adult. 

• P can believe “I can easily duck this punch” and still apprehend the punch 

• P can expect a third person to intervene and still apprehend contact

• P doesn’t need to think contact is certain. It’s enough that D is capable of causing it. 

• D is behind a locked floor-to-ceiling glass window holding up a fist and threatening to punch P → not reasonable for P to apprehend contact on these facts alone. 

4. P must apprehend contact with P’s own person 

• D points a gun at P’s child → not assault

5. The apprehended contact must be imminent 

• I am going to punch you right now” while advancing → probably assault

• “I will beat you up tomorrow” → not assault 

• “The next time I see you, I will kill you” → not assault 

• “I am going to go to my car and get my gun and kill you” → MAYBE! 

6. D needs only the apparent ability to cause contact with P 

• D points an unloaded gun at P; P believes it is loaded → assault 

• D points a realistic toy gun at P; P believes it is real → assault 

• D points an unloaded gun at P; P knows it is unloaded → no assault 

• D reaches toward P, but an obviously impassable barrier prevents contact → probably not assault. 

• D cannot reach across the barrier, but it looks like D could, and P reasonably believes D can → probably assault (Western Union) 

7. Words require an action 

• I’ll kill you someday → no assault 

• I’ll kill you + D pounds on P’s door and tries to force it open → probably assault. 

• “Give me your wallet” while gesturing toward what appears to be a gun → maybe assault

• A text saying “I’m outside your door with a gun” → maybe assault. Depends on whether the circumstances point to imminence. 

• With all of the previous rules considered, P’s apprehension MUST BE REASONABLE. 

• An ordinarily courageous person would apprehend contact.

Aphresension is

• expect immediate physical harm or unwanted touch): 

What Do Courts Look At?

 

• Distance / physical barriers 

• Visible weapons 

• Parties’ comparative sizes 

• Prior interactions known to P 

• Special knowledge D has about P 

• What P knows about D’s ability 

• NOTE: If D specifically intends to create apprehension and actually succeeds in creating it in P, a court may find assault, even if an ordinarily courageous person wouldn’t apprehend contact. 

• Ex: D knows that P has an extreme fear of birds. As a prank, D walks toward P holding a tiny caged finch and says, “I’m going to let it out right next to you.” The bird is harmless, the cage is still closed, and a reasonable person would not expect harmful or offensive contact. But D specifically intends to make P think contact is about to occur, and P actually believes the bird is about to fly into her and panics. → probably assault. 

Assault - I de S et ux. W de S Facts and Rule

• Facts: Dude using ax to get into store and woman was scared 

• Rule: Assault doesn’t require physical harm. Only intent to cause a P to apphrend/antiicpate harmful/offensive contact. P may recover for an assault even if no harm was done

Assault - Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill Facts and Rule

• Facts:Defendant’s employee routinely provided repairs to the clock located in Plaintiff’s business. On one occasion when Plaintiff’s wife requested that he repair the clock, Defendant’s employee allegedly offered to fix the clock in exchange for sexual favors and unsuccessfully reached out to grab her. When Plaintiff sued for assault, Defendant denied the allegations and argued the physical evidence showed he could not have reached Plaintiff’s wife.

• Rule: Apparent ability to cause harm (through the eyes of P) is enough.

False Imprisonment

D intentionally confines P within a limited area. P must know they are confined and must actually be confined. 

False Imprisonment checklist

1. What did D intend?

• Did D want to confine P? Or 

• Did D know P would be confined? 

2. Was P confined?

• Was P actually restricted to a bounded area? 

• Confinement = physical barriers, force/threats of force, asserted legal authority, duress. 

3. Was P aware of the confinement?

• While it was happening (majority view) 

• If not, did P suffer any actual harm from it? (minority view) 

4. Was there a reasonable means of escape?

• Did P know about a reasonably safe way to escape? 

  • Not reasonable if P would be harmed, humiliated, or substantially inconvenienced

  • Moral pressure doesn't count 

5. Was D privileged to confine P? 

• Even if all the elements are met, was the confinement legally privileged?

• Ex: shopkeepers privilege 

False Imprisonment Rules

1. What is Intent?

• D wanted to confine P

• D knew P would be confined 

2. What is Confinement?

• P must be confined within a limited area in which P’s freedom of movement in all directions is constrained (big nursing) 

• Majority: P must be aware of the confinement when it occurs or 

• Minority: suffer actual harm from the confinement (know both majority and minority

• Any length of time

Methods of Confinement: 

1. Physical Barriers

2. Physical Force/ Threat of Physical Force

3. Duress

4. Assertion of Legal Authority 

5. Refusal to Release P 

6. What is a Limited Area?

7. What must P’s knowledge of an Exit be?

What are methods of confimenet for false imprisonement?

1. Physical Barriers

• These do not have to be made by D 

• Ex: an individual aware that another person is sitting in a windowless room intentionally locks the door to that room. The individual has confined the other person. 

2. Physical Force/ Threat of Physical Force

• P submits to force, or restraint has been confined even though P is physically capable of escaping. 

• Ex: A 10-year-old fan grabs the shirt of Trisha Paytas as she is walking away from the meet and greet. The fan intends to hold on until Trisha signs her Birkin bag. Trisha could easily break free, but she does not. The fan has confined the player. Why? - possibly dignity or to protect her image. 

3. Duress

• P who agrees to remain in a limited area because of D’s duress is confined. Duress may arise from D’s threat to harm a member of P’s family or retain P’s property 

• Room for argument → But moral pressure does not constitute duress (appeals to conscience, courtesy, or fear of embarrassment) 

4. Assertion of Legal Authority 

• A D confines P if: 

  • D asserts the legal authority to take P into custody or to confine P otherwise 

  • AND P submits to such confinement because P believes either that P: 

    • Has a duty to comply with the assertion of authority OR 

    • Might face adverse legal or physical consequences for failure to comply 

• Some privileges may apply → arrest privilege (but watch for an Enright situation); other crime-related conduct (shopkeeper’s privilege) 

5. Refusal to Release P 

• Improper confinement occurs when D refuses to perform a duty to release P from an existing confinement or to provide P with means of escape. 

• Ex: Kate locked herself in a restroom on motor yacht Honor. The boat may be liable if it intentionally fails to help her unlock the door. 

6. What is a Limited Area?

• The area may be large (ex: a state) 

• The area does not have to be stationary (ex: a moving car) 

• Being compelled to move in a highly restricted way (such as accompanying D to the back of a store or to a police station) can be contempt 

7. What must P’s knowledge of an Exit be?

• If P knows of a readily available,e feasible, and safe way to exit the limited area → P is not confined by a physical barrier. 

• P is not required to use an exit that would expose P to any risk of physical harm (ex: jump out window when the doors are locked) 

• Note: D can still form the intent to confine, but if confinement doesn't happen, then it’s not false imprisonment

What is a shopkeeper’s privilege for false imprisonment?

• Definition: A shopkeeper may detain someone the shopkeeper reasonably believes to be shoplifting, but only for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.

1. Reasonable Belief

• Don’t be racist

• Customer can inform 

2. Reasonable Time: 

• The detention may last only as long as reasonably necessary to confirm shoplifting or until the police arrive. 

3. Reasonable Manner

• The shopkeeper may use only force reasonably necessary to detain the subject and may not cause unnecessary humiliation or discomfort.

False Imprisonment - Parvi v. City of Kingston Facts and Rules

• Facts: 

• Rule: Awareness of confinement is required for false imprisonment, but actual recollection of it later is not. Even though Parvi testified at trial that he couldn't remember being confined, other evidence showed he was aware of the situation at the time. Therefore, the jury could find false imprisonment. 

• Main idea: A victim who has no recollection of their confinement can recover damages for false imprisonment

False Imprisonment - Big Nursing Facts and Rules

• Facts: 

• Rule: P must be confined within a limited area in which P’s freedom of movement in all directions is constrained.

False Imprisonment - Hardy v. Labelle Facts and Rules

• Facts: 

• Rule: Moral pressure does not constitute duress (appeals to conscience, courtesy, or fear of embarrassment)

False Imprisonment - Enright Facts and Rules

• Facts: 

• Rule: False arrest occurs when someone is taken into custody by someone claiming legal authority but who does not actually have the specific legal right to restrain them for that action.

Trespass to Land Checklist

1. Did Defendant intentionally act?

   1. D must intend the physical act that results in entry of the land. 

   2. D does not need to intend to trespass, violate P’s rights, or cause harm to P’s land.

2. Did Defendant enter, remain on, or cause something/someone to enter P’s land?

   1. Trespass occurs when D: 

      1. Personally enters the land

      2. Causes a person or thing to enter

      3. Remains after permission expires or is revoked

      4. Fails to remove something D has a duty to remove

   2. Nuisance = a different tort!

3. Was the invaded space legally part of P’s land?

   1. Ask whether P has a possessory interest in the relevant space (on, above, below land)

   2. Note: trespass requires possession, not ownership. A renter can sue for TTL!

4. Was the entry unauthorized? (i.e. not privileged) 

   1. Consent, license, easement, necessity, or another privilege might defeat liability.

5. Any actual damage?

   1. Not required. Nominal damage is permitted.

Trespass to Land Rules

1. Defendant intentionally:

1.  enters land in the possession of the Plaintiff or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or 

2. remains on the land, or 

3. fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove (Rogers v. Kent County)

2. What right is being protected? 

   1. Exclusion!

3. Intent → D need only the intent to make physical contact with the land OR intend to remain on the land OR intend to cause a person or object to make physical contact with the land. (like a battery but to land!) 

   1. Defendant does not have to know that P owns the land. 

   2. Mistake does not help Defendant. 

   3. Transferred intent applies (e.g. D intends to throw a rock into A’s yard, and it lands in B’s yard). 

   4. Defendant is not liable when D enters the land by negligence or accident. (e.g., a car accidentally hits property)

4. HARM IS NOT REQUIRED!  (Dougherty v. Stepp). Nominal damages are available! Why does that matter?

5. Entry

   1. Must be a tangible entry (person or object) → interferes with the physical possession of the land.

      1. Smoke, noise, light, pollution = nuisance (a different tort!). 

   2. Above / Below land → trespass can be committed above, below, or on the land. Limiting principle: interference with the P’s reasonable use of the land (Herrin v. Sutherland) 

Nuisance (Rules) 

1. Public Nuisance → an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public (health, safety, convenience, comfort). 

   1. Blocking a public road.

   2. Polluting a river used by the community. 

   3. Operating an illegal business that harms public morals. 

2. Private Nuisance → a substantial and unreasonable interference with a private individual’s use and enjoyment of their land. 

   1. Loud noises or foul odors from a neighbor’s property.

   2. Smoke or dust drifting onto your land. 

   3. Flooding caused by a neighbor’s drainage. 

3. Trespass versus Nuisance → Trespass protects the plaintiff’s right to exclusive possession of land; Nuisance protects a plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the land. 

   1. Why is Herrin v. Sutherland a trespass case and not a nuisance case? Doesn’t the court invoke the “enjoyment” of the land? 

   2. The difference is physical invasion (bullets) vs. non-physical invasion (noise).

TTL - Defendant intentionally?

1.  enters land in the possession of the Plaintiff or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or 

2. remains on the land, or 

3. fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove (Rogers v. Kent County)

TTL - What right is being protected?

Exclusion!

TTL - Is harm required?

(Dougherty v. Stepp). Nominal damages are available! Why does that matter?

TTL - Nuisance

1. Public Nuisance → an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public (health, safety, convenience, comfort). 

   1. Blocking a public road.

   2. Polluting a river used by the community. 

   3. Operating an illegal business that harms public morals. 

2. Private Nuisance → a substantial and unreasonable interference with a private individual’s use and enjoyment of their land. 

   1. Loud noises or foul odors from a neighbor’s property.

   2. Smoke or dust drifting onto your land. 

   3. Flooding caused by a neighbor’s drainage. 

3. Trespass versus Nuisance → Trespass protects the plaintiff’s right to exclusive possession of land; Nuisance protects a plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the land. 

   1. Why is Herrin v. Sutherland a trespass case and not a nuisance case? Doesn’t the court invoke the “enjoyment” of the land? 

   2. The difference is physical invasion (bullets) vs. non-physical invasion (noise).

Why do people sue under TTL?

1. make people move their fence off thier property cases like that

2. petty

3. principle

Trespass to Land - Herrin v. Sutherland facts and rules

• Facts: 

• Issue: Whether firing bullets over the land of another constitutes a trespass to land. 

• Rule: Landowners control the airspace they can reasonably use. Old rule said “heaven to hell.” That’s no longer plausible with the invention of air travel. 

• No precise measurement above or below.

Trespass to Land - U.S. v. Causby rule

• flights 83 feet over a chicken farm were considered a taking because they interfered with the farmer's possessory interest in his land.

Trespass to Chattels

• Defendant intentionally interferes with P’s possessory interest in P’s chattel (tangible item and personal property), where harm occurs. Baby version of Conversion

In court what should we always agrue if we have TTC?

• TTC and Conversion

TTC Checklist

1. Identify the chattel! And does it belong to P?

2. Did D intentionally act with respect to P’s chattel?

   1. D must intend the contact, use, intermeddling, or dispossession.

   2. D does not need to intend harm or know the chattel belongs to P.

3. Did D damage, intermeddle, or dispossess P of P’s chattel?

   1. Damage → actual damage. 

   2. Intermeddling → D physically uses or interferes with the chattel without necessarily taking possession.

   3. Dispossession → D takes the chattel out of P’s possession or control.

4. Did the interference cause the kind of harm required for trespass to chattels?

   1. Usually one of these:

      1. impairment of the chattel’s condition, quality, or value;

      2. substantial deprivation of use;

      3. dispossession of the chattel.

5. Was the interference unauthorized or unprivileged?

   1. Consent, necessity, or another privilege can defeat liability.

6. What damages follow?

   1. Unlike trespass to land, mere harmless interference is generally not enough.

   2. P ordinarily must show actual harm or qualifying dispossession/deprivation.

TTC Rules

1. Defendant intentionally interferes with P’s possessory interest in P’s personal property. 

2. Chattel → tangible item of personal property that can be possessed, used, transferred, or controlled

   1. Note: digital assets can still be chattel (though arguably intangible). Courts ask if the digital asset is sufficiently definite, capable of exclusive control, transferable or valuable, and subject to a legally cognizable possessory interest.

3. Intent → Defendant intends to interfere with chattel that is possessed by another. 

1. Mistake does not help defendant. Mistake is no escape. 

2. Transferred intent applies. 

2. Types of Interference

   1. Damaging the chattel 

   2. Intermeddling with the chattel 

   3. Dispossessing P of the chattel

3. Harm: actual damage, substantial deprivation of use, dispossession

   1. Actual damage → Unlike trespass to land, minor interference with the chattel is not enough. There must be actual damage. (Glidden v. Szybiak)

   2. Substantial deprivation → not mere momentary interference with the chattel. 

      1. Substantial → D remotely locks P out of her laptop for three days, so P cannot use it for work even though the laptop remains on her desk.

      2. Not substantial → D closes P’s laptop for thirty seconds while P is using it, then immediately gives control back.

   3. Dispossession →tort if the defendant totally dispossesses P of their chattel (like stealing it). Doesn’t matter how quickly the chattel is returned. Example → D takes P’s laptop from her desk.

4. Damages → P may be entitled to the diminution of value or cost of repair

TCC - what must D intentionally interfere with?

• With P’s possessory interest in P’s personal property.

• What is possessoary interest?

  • x

TTC - What is a chattel?

1. tangible item of personal property that can be possessed, used, transferred, or controlled

   1. Note: digital assets can still be chattel (though arguably intangible). Courts ask if the digital asset is sufficiently definite, capable of exclusive control, transferable or valuable, and subject to a legally cognizable possessory interest.

TTC - What is intent?

1. Defendant intends to interfere with chattel that is possessed by another. 

• Mistake does not help defendant. Mistake is no escape. 

• Transferred intent applies. 

TTC - Types of Interference

1. Damaging the chattel 

2. Intermeddling with the chattel 

3. Dispossessing P of the chattel

TCC - Harm types

1. actual damage

2. substntial deprivation

3. dispossession

TCC - Harm type: Actual damage

• Unlike trespass to land, minor interference with the chattel is not enough. There must be actual damage. (Glidden v. Szybiak)

TCC - Harm type: substnatial deprivation

1.  not mere momentary interference with the chattel. 

   1. Substantial → D remotely locks P out of her laptop for three days, so P cannot use it for work even though the laptop remains on her desk.

   2. Not substantial → D closes P’s laptop for thirty seconds while P is using it, then immediately gives control back.

TCC - Harm type: disposession

1. tort if the defendant totally dispossesses P of their chattel (like stealing it). Doesn’t matter how quickly the chattel is returned. Example → D takes P’s laptop from her desk.

TCC - damages

• P may be entitled to the diminution of value or cost of repair

TCC - Glidden v. Szybiak facts and rule

• Facts:

• Rule:

Conversion

• Defendant intentionally exercises dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of P to control it that D may justly be required to pay P the full value of the chattel. - need TTC first - Cannot replace the item. It's destroyed

Conversion Checklist

1. Identify the chattel!

2. Did P have the right to possess or control the chattel? 

• Absolute ownership is not a requirement, but P must have a possessory right superior to D (in other words, D must be required to respect P’s possessory right). 

3. Did D intentionally exercise dominion or control over P’s chattel?

4. What method did D exercise dominion or control over P’s chattel?

   1. Wrongful acquisition, transfer, detention

   2. Substantially changing the chattel (including improvement!) or severely damaging it. 

   3. Seriously misusing the chattel. 

5. Was D’s interference sufficiently serious to constitute conversion (instead of TTC)? Use the factors: 

1. The duration and extent of the interference;

2. The defendant’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the rightful possessor;

3. The defendant’s good faith;

4. The expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff; and

5. The extent of the harm to the chattel.

6. Was there any privilege? 

7. What remedy is available? 

1. Full value of the chattel or 

2. Replevin (get your shit back)

Conversion Rules

1. Intent

2. Serious Interference facts

3. Methods of conversion

4. Damages

Conversion Intent

• Intent to exercise control of or dominion over the goods. 

• Same as the intent standard for trespass to land. 

• Motive / Mistake are irrelevant. A good faith purchase from a thief is still conversion. 

  • That delivery driver from the viral TikTok who “stole” a cake pop is still a converter…

• NO TRANSFERRED INTENT (failed conversion = TTC or negligence)

Conversion: Serious interference facts IMPORTANT

• The duration and extent of the interference;

• The defendant’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the rightful possessor;

• The defendant’s good faith;

• The expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff; and

• The extent of the harm to the chattel.

Conversion - methods

• wrongful acquisition

• transfer, or detention; 

• substantially changing (even improvements!);

• severely damaging or destroying or misusing the chattel

• Note: making copies is not conversion! If P still maintains the control/usefulness of the chattel, conversion likely hasn’t occurred (Pearson v. Dodd).

Conversion - Damages

1. full value of the chattel or replevin (an order to get your property back). NO SENTIMENTAL VALUE! 

   1. Full value of chattel (fair market value) 

   2. Fair replevin (get your shit back) 

   3. This is how much the court will give you to the extent of the damage