Alex Evans Torts September 5 Intentional Torts Rule Precedent Class Notes Points of Emphasis

Cases Covered: Trespass to Land Dougherty v. Stepp Every unauthorized and therefore unlawful entry, into the property of another, is a trespass, regardless of damage. Every such entry against the will of the possessor, the law automatically infers some damage. Herrin v. Sutherland Plaintiffs exclusive right to possess the land extends above (and below) it. Rogers v. Board of Road Comrs for Kent County Trespass action will lie if the defendant entered the land with permission but then overstayed the duration of the permission. Trespass to Chattels Glidden v. Szybiak An action for trespass to chattels requires EITHER: o Harm to the chattel **OR** o Dispossession of possession for a long enough period of time that the dispossession is the damage. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. The actual damage requirement for trespass to chattels may be satisfied by intermeddling with the chattel in a way that interferes with possessors business. Electronic signals generated and sent by computer are sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause of action Pearson v. Dodd Conversion requires the serious interference with the right of another to control it, to such an extent that the actor may justly be required to pay the dispossessed the full value of the chattel.

Classnotes on September 5th: I) Trespass to Land A) Definitions 1) Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land (Restatement)

Alex Evans (a) One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally if one: (i) Enters Land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so OR (ii) Remains on the land OR (iii) Fails to remove from the land a thing, which he or she is under a duty to remove. 2) Intentional Entries on Land (Restatement) (a) One who intentionally enters land in the possession of another is subject to liability to the possessor for a trespass, although his presence on the land causes no harm to the land, its possessor, or to any thing or person in whose security the possessor has a legally protected interest. 3) Mistaken Entries on Land (Restatement) (a) One who intentionally enters land in the possession of another is subject to liability to the possessor of the land as a trespasser, although he acts under a mistaken belief of law or fact, however reasonable, not induced by the conduct of the possessor, that he: (i) Is in possession of the land or entitled to it, OR (ii) Has the consent of the possessor or of a third person who has the power to give consent on the possessors behalf, OR (iii) Has some other privilege to enter or remain on the land. B) Precedent: 1) Dougherty v. Stepp (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1835) (a) Ruling: (i) Every unauthorized and therefore unlawful entry, into the close of another, is a trespass. From every such entry against the will of the possessor, the law infers some damage If nothing more, the treading down the grass or herbage, or as here, the shrubbery. 2) Herrin v. Sutherland (Supreme Court of Montana, 1925.) (a) Facts: (i) Defendant shoots a gun from his land at birds flying over adjacent owners land. (b) Ruling: (i) Plaintiffs exclusive right to possess the land extends above (and below) it. (c) ** Modern law limits some of this exclusive right (e.g. airplanes flying over your land)

Alex Evans 3) Rogers v. Board of Road Comrs for Kent County (Supreme Court of Michigan, 1947) (a) Facts: (i) Plaintiffs husband was killed when he ran over a stake left behind during road construction. (b) Ruling: (i) Trespass action will lie if the defendant entered the land with permission but then overstayed the duration of the permission. II) Trespass to Chattels A) Definition: 1) ??????????????????????????????? B) Precedent 1) Glidden v. Szybiak (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949) (a) Facts: (i) Little girl (Plaintiff) walks to the store, finding a dog on the stores porch. (ii) Plays with a dog on defendants porch until the dog bites her. (b) Ruling: (i) An action for trespass to chattels requires either some harm to the chattel or that the plaintiff was dispossessed of its possession for a long enough period of time that the dispossession is a damage. Unlike assault, battery, and trespass to land, most jurisdictions would not recognize an entitlement to nominal damages. 2) CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. (US District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 1997). (a) Facts: (i) Cyber Promotions (Defendant) sent massive amounts of spam e-mails to CompuServe (Plaintiff). (ii) Plaintiff says such increasing amounts of email have overwhelmed their computer systems. (b) Ruling: (i) The actual damage requirement for trespass to chattels may be satisfied by intermeddling with the chattel in a way that interferes with possessors business. Electronic signals generated and sent by computer are sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause of action III) Conversion A) What Constitutes Conversion (Restatement of Torts, Second) 1) Definition: (a) An intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel. (b) The ways in which an actor may convert a chattel: (i) Acquiring possession of it e.g., stealing the chattel;

Alex Evans (ii) Damaging or altering it e.g., intentionally running over an animal and killing it; (iii) Using it e.g., a bailee seriously violates the terms of the bailment (iv) Receiving it e.g., obtaining possession after a purchase from a thief; (v) Disposing of it e.g., a bailee wrongfully sells the chattel; (vi) Misdelivering it e.g., delivery to wrong person by mistake so that the chattel is lost; **OR** (vii) Refusing to surrender it e.g., bailee refuses to return the chattel. 2) In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value the following factors are important: (a) The extent and duration of the actors exercise of dominion or control; (b) The actors intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the others right of control; (c) The actors good faith; (d) The extent and duration of the resulting interference with the others right of control; (e) The harm done to the chattel; (f) The inconvenience and expense caused to the other. B) Damages 1) The Converting defendant has in some way treated the goods as if they were his own, so that the plaintiff can properly ask the court to decree a forced sale of the property from the rightful possessor to the converter. 2) Some, but not many, jurisdictions obligate the owner to demand the chattel back. C) Precedent 1) Pearson v. Dodd (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 1969) (a) Facts: (b) Ruling: (i) Documents taken without authorization from plaintiffs files were not converted because: They were returned before plaintiff would have used them in the course of office operations, **AND** The information contained on the documents was not itself property because it was not: Literary property; Scientific invention; **OR** Secret plans for the conduct of commerce.