Intentional Interference with Personal Property
Trespass to Chattels
Glidden v. Szybiak
Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949. 95 N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233.
Glidden is the plaintiff and Szybiak is the defendant. Judgement was made in favor of the plaintiff and defendant appealed.
Question
Was there a trespass to chattels here?
Rule
A trespass to chattels occur if:
- chattel is impaired or
- possessor is deprived of use of the chattel or
- bodily harm is caused to the possessor of the chattel or the chattel itself
Holding
No claim of injury to the chattel. Judgement affirmed.
Facts
Plaintiff is a 4-year-old girl and her father requesting damages for medical expenses. Glidden was heading to the store and stopped to play with the defendant’s dog. The dog bit her when she attempted to climb on top of it. She went to the hospital and there was minimal scarring.
Trial court rendered judgement for the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed claiming trespass on the dog.
Analysis
The court outlines the facts of the case, state the rule, and overturn because there was no allegation of injury to the dog. Because this claim is lacking, there is no possibility that the plaintiff can be held liable for trespass.
Takeaway
A trespass to chattels is trespass to an individual or property of an individual other than land. However, there needs to be evidence of injury to the possessor or chattel for a claim of trespass to be valid.
Additional Notes
Here, there is a statute that puts strict liability on dog owners, making them liable for the any action of the dog. However, the owner is not liable if the plaintiff is engaged in trespass or another tort. So, we need to see if the plaintiff trespassed.
To trespass to chattels there are three OR elements:
- Chattel is impaired OR
- Possessor is deprived the use of the chattel for a substantial time OR
- Bodily harm is caused to the possessor or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
None of these elements were claimed and so the court calls the actions of the plaintiff “harmless intermeddling”.
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 1997. 962 F. Supp. 1015.
CompuServe is the plaintiff and Cyber Promotions is the defendant. Plaintiffs have a temporary restraining order on defendants and are requesting the order to be extended.
Question
Does trespass to chattels also include the internet? In this case, spam mail to a server.
Rule
Trespass to chattels includes the unauthorized use of personal property. Electronic signals count as physical. Trespass occurs if:
- trespasser dispossesses the owner of the chattel OR
- chattel is impaired OR
- Possessor is deprived of use of the chattel OR
- bodily harm is caused to the possessor or harm is caused in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
Holding
This is a trespass to chattel. The temporary restraining order is granted.
Facts
CompuServe is an email service and Cyber Promotions sends mass emails. CompuServe received a lot of complaints from subscribers of the spam. The servers also also struggled to keep up with the amount of emails being put through them. When the plaintiffs asked the defendants to stop, they refused and sent more spam. The plaintiffs then added filters in an attempt to limit the emails that make it to the server but the defendants changed the domain and address to get around the filters. This added an extra burden on the servers because now the emails couldn’t be returned.
Analysis
This is a trespass to chattels. The courts here determine that the servers are private property and a physical force can be ascertained through electronic waves. The court now needs to determine if the trespass violates one of the “or” elements. Here, the court says that the chattel is impaired because of the significant burden that is placed on the property. Additionally, the court agrees that harm is caused to the possessor in which they have a legally protected interest (maintaining subscribers).
Takeaway
Trespass can occur over the internet.
Additional Notes
Here, there was “damage” caused to the chattel (server). But how do we measure damages? We ask, “how much did it cost to repair the damage?” The cost of repair is the requested amount of damages.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
