A wrongful injury to or interference with the property of another is known as

If someone wrongfully took your personal property, you may be able to bring an intentional torts claim against the person. But which type of tort would be a valid cause of action? Both trespass to chattels and conversion deal with wrongfully interfering with a person's personal property. Although they are similar in a way, there are significant differences that you should know before filing a lawsuit. Read on to learn about the similarities and differences between trespass to chattels and conversion.

What Are Trespass to Chattels and Conversion?

Trespass to chattels and conversion are both intentional torts that refer to a wrongful, intentional interference with the possession of someone's personal property. Trespass to chattels and conversion deal only with personal property. They do not apply to the interference of real property or any interest in land.

Both trespass to chattels and conversion are general intent torts. As opposed to specific intent torts, general intent torts do not consider whether the tortfeasor knew his or her conduct would result in the specific harm. As a result, mistake of ownership is not a valid defense to trespass to chattels and conversion.

Difference Between Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

It's often easy to confuse trespass to chattels with conversion because they both deal with interfering personal property. Here's a look at the differences between the two torts:

The Degree of Interference

The main difference between trespass to chattels and conversion is the degree of interference. Conversion occurs when a person uses or alters a piece of personal property belonging to someone else without the owner's consent. The degree of interference for conversion must be so serious that the tortfeasor, or person accused of committing the tort, may be required to pay the full value of the property.

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court may consider the following factors to determine the seriousness of the interference in a conversion case:

1. The extent and duration of the tortfeasor's exercise of dominion or control
2. The tortfeasor's intent to deprive the owner on possession
3. The tortfeasor's good faith
4. The extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right of control
5. The harm done to the chattel
6. The inconvenience and expense caused

On the other hand, a trespass to chattels is an act that falls short of conversion. The tortfeasor is responsible only to the extent of the damage done (not the full value of the property) from dispossessing another of the chattel, using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another, or damaging the chattel.

Elements of Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

Proving trespass to chattels and conversion involve the following elements: (1) the plaintiff owns or has the right to possess the personal property at issue; (2) the tortfeasor intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's property; (3) the tortfeasor deprived the plaintiff of possession or use of the property at issue; and (4) the interference caused damages to the plaintiff.

Remedies: Trespass to Chattels vs. Conversion

As mentioned above, an ordinary conversion case will require the tortfeasor to pay the full market value of the property to its owner. If the owner is not fully deprived of the property, and it can be returned to the owner, the tortfeasor would be liable for the actual damage, which is the usual remedy for trespass to chattels. As opposed to paying the full value of the property, the tortfeasor will pay the diminished value of the chattel.

Get Legal Help with Your Conversion or Trespass to Chattels Claim

Differentiating between trespass to chattels and conversion and applying the relevant elements to a case can be difficult. Professional legal knowledge and skills are often key to evaluating an intentional tort claim. Start working on your case today by speaking with an experienced personal injury attorney in your area.

A wrongful injury to or interference with the property of another is known as

Anything that interferes with the enjoyment of property or life is

A wrongful act the injures another’s reputation by making false statements is called

A violation of a person’s right to be left alone is known as

The unlawful, unprivileged touching of another human being is

A suit for negligence must prove four elements: duty of care, breach of duty, proximate cause, and..

Defenses to negligence include contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and..

According to the doctrine of strict liability, people who engage in ultrahazardous activities will be held liable for any injury or damage that occur because of the activity, regardless of

In recent years the doctrine of strict liability has been applied to

Interference with another’s enjoyment of life or property is known as

A wrongful act that injures another’s reputation with false statements is known as

The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person known as

The tort that results when one person deliberately frightens another person into the reasonable belief that he or she is about to be injured is known as

Responsibility to answer for harm that results from ultrahazardous activity is known as

A wrong that occurs when a person knows and desires the consequences of his or her act is known as

Ones interference with the rights of another is known as

The unlawful, unprivileged touching of another is known as

The link between unreasonable conduct and injury in a negligence suit is known as

the harm not only specific individuals but also the general welfare

person who committed the tort, meant to commit harm.

false arrest, if they make an arrest without meeting these requirements.

damaging false statement that damages a person’s reputation.

act of making a false statement of someone that ruins their reputation.

every person has the certain rights in our society, all of us have a duty to not violate those rights.

failure to use the degree of care required under the circumstances.

the legal connection between unreasonable conduct and the resulting harm.

behavior by the plaintiff that helps cause his or her injuries

the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percent of his or her negligence.

when the defendant can show the plaintiff the risk involved and still took the chance of being injured.

One’s interference with the rights of another is known as..