Top Law Schools

I understand that in trespass to chattels, unlike trespass to land, harm must occur. I don't understand, however, if the harm must be shown on only the chattel, or is harm to the possessor is also sufficient.

For example, A takes B's keys, promising to return them after A is done showing B some cars in his used car lot. Several hours later, B requests his keys back, and A denies having them. This continues for several minutes. B, who has little patience, is progressively enraged. A finally gives up his little game and surrenders the keys to B's car.

There was no harm done to the keys or the car, but could a trespass to chattels claim still be made in that B was harmed?

SwampRat88 wrote:I understand that in trespass to chattels, unlike trespass to land, harm must occur. I don't understand, however, if the harm must be shown on only the chattel, or is harm to the possessor is also sufficient.

For example, A takes B's keys, promising to return them after A is done showing B some cars in his used car lot. Several hours later, B requests his keys back, and A denies having them. This continues for several minutes. B, who has little patience, is progressively enraged. A finally gives up his little game and surrenders the keys to B's car.

There was no harm done to the keys or the car, but could a trespass to chattels claim still be made in that B was harmed?

You have to show that you were substantially deprived of its use for a significant amount of time. Demonstrating harm to you might do it (like you missed work).

I think the better tort claim will be when B sneaks up behind A and hits him over the head with a shovel and yells "Take that bitch!"

UT1502 wrote:

SwampRat88 wrote:I understand that in trespass to chattels, unlike trespass to land, harm must occur. I don't understand, however, if the harm must be shown on only the chattel, or is harm to the possessor is also sufficient.

For example, A takes B's keys, promising to return them after A is done showing B some cars in his used car lot. Several hours later, B requests his keys back, and A denies having them. This continues for several minutes. B, who has little patience, is progressively enraged. A finally gives up his little game and surrenders the keys to B's car.

There was no harm done to the keys or the car, but could a trespass to chattels claim still be made in that B was harmed?

You have to show that you were substantially deprived of its use for a significant amount of time. Demonstrating harm to you might do it (like you missed work).

What if A's actions caused B to have a heart attack because of a unique condition. Would that be sufficient for harm in IIED in this example?

SwampRat88 wrote:

UT1502 wrote:

SwampRat88 wrote:I understand that in trespass to chattels, unlike trespass to land, harm must occur. I don't understand, however, if the harm must be shown on only the chattel, or is harm to the possessor is also sufficient.

For example, A takes B's keys, promising to return them after A is done showing B some cars in his used car lot. Several hours later, B requests his keys back, and A denies having them. This continues for several minutes. B, who has little patience, is progressively enraged. A finally gives up his little game and surrenders the keys to B's car.

There was no harm done to the keys or the car, but could a trespass to chattels claim still be made in that B was harmed?

You have to show that you were substantially deprived of its use for a significant amount of time. Demonstrating harm to you might do it (like you missed work).

What if A's actions caused B to have a heart attack because of a unique condition. Would that be sufficient for harm in IIED in this example?

IIED is damn near impossible to prove. I think A would have to know about the unique condition AND know (or reasonably should) that his actions could cause B to have a heart attack.

My torts prof only cared about spotting the possibility, not what ACTUALLY would sway a court, and I'm realizing the shortcomings of that method now.