Intentional Harms to Property

What are three established intentional torts to property

• Conversion, 

• Trespass to chattels, and 

• Trespass to land.

What are the 3 defenses and privileges to intentional harms of property?

• Defense of property. 

• Private necessity, and 

• Public necessity.

What does the element of intent mean when it comes to intentional harms of property?

Only the intent to do the interfering act is necessary; the defendant need not have intended to interfere with another’s possession of tangible property.

What is intentional property torts supposed to do?

Protect a person’s rights in personal property (chattels) and real property (land) 

When is a person liable for conversion, what’s the rule?

A defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel.

Tell me about a case that showcases conversion:

• Pearson v. Dodd (D.C. Cir. 1969)

  • Facts: Former employees of Plaintiff passed copies of documents from Plaintiff's office to Defendants, without Plaintiff's knowledge. Defendants then published articles containing information from the documents. Plaintiff was exposed for misappropriation of over $100,000 in campaign donations for personal use.

  • Here, Defendants had not interfered with Plaintiff's documents by exercising dominion or control over them. The original documents were returned to Plaintiff's office, allowing Plaintiff full utility of the documents as previously intended. Because no conversion of the physical property or intangibles that have been reduced to physical form of Plaintiff's files took place, Defendants were not liable for conversion.

When is a person liable for trespass to chattels, what’s the rule?

A defendant commits a trespass to chattels (i.e., tangible personal property) if they intentionally interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession by:

i)Dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel; or

ii)Using or intermeddling with the plaintiff’s chattel

What is the difference between trespass and conversion of chattels?

Trespass to chattels is an interference with one’s property rights less serious than conversion. Where intermeddling falls short of complete or very substantial deprivation of possessory rights.

Is the mistake of law or fact by a defendant regarding their actions around a trespass or conversion of chattels a defense?

No

What is the rule around trespass to land?

Trespass to land occurs when the defendant’s intentional act causes a physical invasion of the land of another

Regarding land for trespass to land what does that include?

constitutes anything affixed to the defendant's property (like a house).

Regarding physical invasion for trespass to land what does that include?

• The defendant need not personally enter onto the plaintiff’s land; A trespass may be committed on, above, or below the surface of the plaintiff’s land.

• Additionally, the defendant’s failure to leave the plaintiff’s property after his lawful right of entry has expired constitutes a physical invasion.

Can you give me a case that illustrates trespass to land?

Schwartzman, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

• Facts: Defendant railroad company allegedly disposed of chemical waste that migrated throughout groundwater and contaminated Plaintiff's neighboring property.

• Application: Contaminants migrating through groundwater can constitute  physical invasion and thus a trespass to land. Intention is met because D “treated and disposed” of the chemical waste that contaminated P’s land. And, under the rule for trespass, the defendant only needs to intend to enter the land or to cause a physical invasion. Once the contaminants, that D treated and disposed of, seeped into/onto P’s land, the physical invasion aspect of trespass is met.

What is the defense to property for intentional harms to property?

An actor is privileged to use reasonable force, not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to defend their property against unprivileged physical invasion of land which they reasonably believe is happening

• Katko the shotgun in old farm house notes how it has to be proportional/reasonable can’t cause serious bodily harm

What is the general rule around the defense of necessity when it comes to intentional harms to property?

The privilege of necessity is available to a person who enters or remains on the land of another (or interferes with another’s personal property) to prevent serious harm, which typically is substantially more serious than the invasion or interference itself. The privilege of necessity applies only to intentional torts to property, including trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.

What is the rule around the defense of public necessity when it comes to intentional harms to property?

Under the doctrine of public necessity, private property may be intruded upon or destroyed when necessary to protect a large number of people from public calamities, such as the spreading of a fire or disease or the advance of a hostile military force.

• defense absolute as long as def acting on reasonable belief necessity existed not liable for any damages to property.

• Lasts as long as emergency.

What is the rule around the defense of private necessity when it comes to intentional harms to property?

• Private necessity is a qualified privilege to protect an interest of the defendant or a limited number of other persons from serious harm when the interference is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm.

• A defendant is not entitled to the protection of this privilege on behalf of another if the defendant knows or has reason to know that the other person is unwilling for the defendant to take such action.

• Despite this privilege, the property owner is entitled to recover actual damages, but cannot recover nominal or punitive damages nor use force to eject the defendant as long as the necessity exists.

Tell me about two cases that showcased the private necessity defense to intentional harms to property:

• Ploof v. Putnam (Vt. 1908)

  • Facts: Plaintiff and his family encountered inclement weather while aboard Plaintiff’s sloop. Plaintiff moored the sloop to Defendant’s dock. Defendant’s employee unmoored the sloop. Plaintiff and his family were injured after the sloop crashed upon the shore. 

  • Application: The stress of a sudden and violent tempest made it reasonably necessary for Plaintiff to interfere with Defendant’s dock to prevent the Plaintiff and his family from serious injury or death. Under the doctrine of necessity, Plaintiff was privileged to trespass and could seek damages for personal injuries that resulted from the unmooring of Plaintiff’s sloop, because Defendant could not use force to eject Plaintiff while the necessity existed.

• Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. (Minn. 1910)

  • Facts: Defendant was docked at Plaintiff’s wharf unloading cargo when a violent storm appeared suddenly. Defendant decided against leaving the wharf to prevent personal property damages, at the expense of Plaintiff’s property.

  • Application: The violent storm made it reasonably necessary for Defendant to interfere and keep its boat connected to Plaintiff's dock, causing damages to Plaintiff's dock. Therefore, Defendant, while not liable for trespass, was responsible for compensating Plaintiff for the incurred damages because Plaintiffs are responsible to the extent of the damages inflicted. Plaintiff cannot seek to recover nominal or punitive damages.