13.4 Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

Trespass to chattels and conversion are two key property torts. They involve interfering with someone's personal property, but differ in severity and consequences. Trespass is a minor interference, while conversion involves taking control of the property.

These torts protect property rights and provide remedies for wrongful interference. Defenses like consent and necessity can justify some property interference. In the digital age, these concepts are being applied to cybertorts involving digital assets and computer systems.

Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

Elements of trespass vs conversion

• Trespass to chattels involves intentional interference with another's lawful possession of personal property causing actual damage to the property (scratches on a car) or substantial interference with the possessor's right to use it (locking someone's bike preventing them from riding it)
• Conversion entails intentional exercise of dominion or control over another's personal property where the interference is so substantial that it justifies requiring the defendant to pay the property's full value (selling someone else's laptop without permission)
• Degree of interference distinguishes trespass to chattels (minor interference like temporarily moving someone's luggage) from conversion (substantial interference such as stealing and crashing someone's car)
• Remedy differs with trespass to chattels allowing for actual damages (cost to repair a dented phone) while conversion permits recovery of the full value of the property (market price of a stolen watch)

Remedies for property torts

• Trespass to chattels remedies include actual damages compensating for harm caused to the property (repair costs for a damaged drone) or loss of use (rental fees for a substitute vehicle) as well as nominal damages if no actual harm is proven and injunctive relief to prevent further trespass (court order prohibiting continued use of someone's Wi-Fi network without consent)
• Conversion allows for damages equal to the full value of the converted property (retail price of a misappropriated piece of art) along with restitution of the property itself if it still exists (return of a converted rare book) plus damages for loss of use or profits during the time of conversion (income lost while a converted food truck was in the defendant's possession)

Defenses in property interference

• Consent serves as a defense when the property owner gives express (written agreement) or implied (handing over keys) permission
• Necessity can justify interference based on public necessity to prevent a greater harm to the community (commandeering a boat to rescue a drowning swimmer) or private necessity to protect the actor's own property from serious harm (breaking into a cabin to take shelter during a blizzard)
• Self-defense or defense of others allows for reasonable force to protect oneself (pepper spraying an attacker) or another (pulling a thief off a victim) from harm
• Recapture of chattels permits peacefully retaking one's own property after it has been wrongfully taken (grabbing back a stolen purse from a pickpocket)
• Privilege extends legal authority to interfere with another's property in certain circumstances (repo agent towing a car for missed payments under a finance agreement)

Digital property and cybertorts

• Trespass to chattels in cyberspace encompasses unauthorized access to computer systems (hacking), sending unsolicited emails or messages that cause harm to the recipient's system (spam overloading an inbox), and installation of spyware or malware that interferes with the user's control over their device (keystroke logging program)
• Conversion of digital property covers wrongful exercise of dominion over another's digital assets such as cryptocurrency (transferring bitcoin from someone else's wallet) or virtual items (selling a video game character without the owner's consent) along with unauthorized copying (pirating movies) or deletion of digital files (erasing someone's cloud storage)
• Challenges arise in applying traditional tort principles to digital property due to the intangible nature of digital assets (no physical form), jurisdictional issues in online disputes (parties in different countries), and valuation of digital property for damages (fluctuating prices of NFTs)