Similar to intentional torts against persons, where an individual is injured, intentional torts to property result in no personal damage but in damage to property due to the intentional conduct of another.
Trespass to Land
Trespass is intentionally going on land that belongs to someone else or putting something on someone else’s property and refusing to remove it.
This part of tort law shows how strongly the law values the rights of property owners. There are limits to property owners’ rights, however. In Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), the plaintiff was injured by a spring gun while trespassing on the defendant’s property. The defendant had set up No Trespassing signs after ten years of trespassing and housebreaking events, with the loss of some household items. Windows had been broken, and there was “messing up of the property in general.” The defendants had boarded up the windows and doors in order to stop the intrusions and finally had set up a shotgun trap in the north bedroom of the house. One defendant had cleaned and oiled his 20-gauge shotgun and taken it to the old house where it was secured to an iron bed with the barrel pointed at the bedroom door. “It was rigged with wire from the doorknob to the gun’s trigger so would fire when the door was opened.” The angle of the shotgun was adjusted to hit an intruder in the legs. The spring could not be seen from the outside, and no warning of its presence was posted.
The plaintiff, Katko, had been hunting in the area for several years and considered the property abandoned. He knew it had long been uninhabited. He and a friend had been to the house and found several old bottles and fruit jars that they took and added to their collection of antiques. When they made a second trip to the property, they entered by removing a board from a porch window. When the plaintiff opened the north bedroom door, the shotgun went off and struck him in the right leg above the ankle bone. Much of his leg was blown away. While Katko knew he had no right to break and enter the house with intent to steal bottles and fruit jars, the court held that a property owner could not protect an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse by using a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury.
In Katko, there is an intentional tort. But what if someone trespassing is injured by the negligence of the landowner? States have differing rules about trespass and negligence. In some states, a trespasser is only protected against the gross negligence of the landowner. In other states, trespassers may be owed the duty of due care on the part of the landowner. The burglar who falls into a drained swimming pool, for example, may have a case against the homeowner unless the courts or legislature of that state have made it clear that trespassers are owed the limited duty to avoid gross negligence. Or a very small child may wander off his own property and fall into a gravel pit on a nearby property and suffer death or serious injury; if the pit should (in the exercise of due care) have been filled in or some barrier erected around it but was not, then there was negligence. Many states refer to this as the “attractive nuisance” doctrine. And comes into play frequently with swimming pools, back yard play sets, etc. under the theory that a small child will not appreciate the dangers that an adult would. But if the state law holds that the duty to trespassers is only to avoid gross negligence, even if the trespasser is a child, the child’s family would lose. Maryland is one state that does not recognize the attractive nuisance doctrine for children.
In general, individuals with permission to be on another’s property such as guests, licensees, and invitees are owed a duty of due care and in many instances a duty to be warned of potential hazards that are not open and obvious dangers. For example, a grocery store will post signs noting wet floors to prevent customers (aka business invitees) from slipping and falling. A trespasser may not be owed such a duty, but check your state’s specific rules on this, especially when the trespasser is in a special category such as a child.
Trespass to Personal Property
(OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “trespass to chattels”)
A “chattel” is personal property that is visible, tangible and moveable. Personal property is anything that is not land (land is also called “real property”), and not permanently affixed to the property. For example, suppose that instead of standing in my field, you hop onto my horse in the field, and sit there to admire the view. My horse is the chattel- because it is moveable. If you do not have my permission to sit on my horse- you have committed a trespass to chattels.
Trespass to personal property or chattels is the intentional unlawful taking or harming of another’s personal property without the owner’s permission.
Trespass to chattels is the intentional interference with an owner’s right to use and possess his or her property. The property does not have to be damaged in any way – just the right of ownership interfered with resulting in harm to the plaintiff.
Conversion
Conversion takes trespass to chattels one step further (you not only sit on my horse, but you also ride it off into the sunset). The basic idea is that you not only deprive another of the exclusive use and possession of her property, but you expect to do so permanently, without just cause. Conversion is the civil equivalent to the crime of theft.
Conversion is the intentional interference with another’s use or possession of personal property to the extent that the defendant must pay the value of the property to the plaintiff.
In determining if a defendant’s interference with another’s personal property rises to the level of conversion, the Restatement [Second] of Torts, Section 222A sets forth six factors the courts will use:
- the extent and duration of the defendant’s exercise of control over the property;
- the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the plaintiff’s right of control;
- the defendant’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right of control;
- the defendant’s good faith;
- the harm done to the chattel;
- the inconvenience and expense caused to the plaintff.
Disparagement of Property
This is the type of “defamation” that is directed more at “defaming” property than persons—it’s called “injurious falsehood (trade disparagement)” and has also been called “slander of quality” or “slander of title,” depending upon the circumstances. According to the treatise Washington Practice, which digests Washington law according to case law and statutes, “Tort Law and Practice,” Section 19.3, a claim for “slander of title” requires proof of the following five elements:
- the statements concerning the plaintiff’s title must be false;
- the statements must be maliciously published [not made in good faith or with a reasonable belief in its truthfulness];
- the statements must be spoken with reference to some pending sale or purchase of the plaintiff’s property;
- the plaintiff must suffer pecuniary [monetary] loss or injury as a result of the false statements; and
- the statements must be such as to defeat the plaintiff’s title [indicate that plaintiff does not have an ownership interest in the property].
See also Disparagement of Title – Wiki
Licensing – Creative Commons 3.0- unported. Holder: Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges. https://www.oercommons.org/courses/business-law-bus-201
Dev Business Law OER Textbook 