Trespass or Conversion?
D drives his car onto the driveway of P's house and parks close by P's car.
None! No Trespass or Conversion.
A tornado drops D's car onto the land. Is Trespass to Land Established?
No trespass to Land; no intent.
Kevin, attending his first Mardi Gras in New Orleans, is surprised when several of the other revelers fire their pistols into the air in celebration. Figuring when in Rome--Kevin pulls out his pistol and fires it into the air. Unlike the arrow that fell to earth we know not where, Kevin's bullet falls onto the shoulder of Tom. A ballistics test determines that the bullet came from Kevin's pistol. Tom sues Kevin for the intentional tort of battery. Is this a battery?
Yes.
On the one hand, the streets were crowded, so Kevin must have known with substantial certainty that the bullet would come back to earth and hit someone--who just happened to be Tom. On the other hand, the probabilities were even greater that the bullet would fall back harmlessly onto a roof or otherwise miss everyone. The streets were not littered with victims from all the bullets fired into the air. A probability of less than 50% cannot be a "substantial certainty." Kevin may be liable for negligence or even recklessness, but not for an intentional tort.
D takes P's car for nighttime joyride, fills with gas, and returns before P awakens.
Trespass to Chattels
Saleswoman invited onto property refuses to leave without P buying. Trespass to Land?
Yes - This question presents a person who has entered the land properly and then refuses to leave when the right to enter is terminated. A similar situation is presented when a person places property on the land and then fails to remove it at the expiration of the permission. Both situations constitute trespass to land.
Prunella, in an attempt to tease Bruce, who she knew to be shy, came up behind him and tousled his immaculate hair. Unfortunately, her rough rubbing caused Bruce to suffer a ruptured disc in his neck. Prunella's personal liability insurance policy covered her negligence but not her intentional torts. Therefore, Bruce sued only for negligence, but not for battery. What is the result - who wins? Is this an intentional tort?
Prunella wins. This is an intentional tort.
Even though Prunella lacked an evil motive and did not intend to harm Bruce, she did intend to make offensive contact. That's a battery.
Prunella's action was more than negligence, which is unreasonably risky conduct. She did not merely risk contact, she intended contact. Prunella intentionally laid hands on Bruce.
Consequently, because Bruce sued only for negligence, he loses. This is an intentional tort. Don't try to argue that Bruce need plead only facts or that he could amend his complaint. This is torts, not civil procedure.
D smashes headlights of P's car after traffic dispute
Trespass to Chattels
Landlord/owner of property sues when D enters land possessed by tenant. Is this Trespass to Land?
No Trespass to Land. Any person in lawful possession of the property can sue for trespass to land. In this case, the person in possession and hence the proper plaintiff would be the tenant, not the owner of the reversionary interest. The owner of the property will have a legal remedy for damage to the property, but this is not trespass to land.
One more time back at the Mardi Gras before we leave it. Joan has a documented history of mental illness. She becomes disoriented by all the excitement. She believes the costumed couple walking toward her on Bourbon Street are planning to injure her. Joan takes her walking stick and smashes both of them over the head. The caned couple sue Joan for battery. Joan presents the testimony of a psychiatrist that Joan does not understand the nature of her actions and is incapable of forming an intent to strike or injure another person. Will Joan be found to have the intent to batter the clubbed couple?
Joan is liable. Mental illness does not negate intent.
D places her hands on P's freshly washed car knowing it will bother P.
No tort. None.
Unable to reach P, D punches horse P is riding, injuring it. Trespass to chattel?
Punching the horse P is riding is also a battery to P?
Certainly. A horse is a chattel. P was in possession of it. D intended to strike P's chattel and that's what happened. The horse was damaged.
This is a tougher question, and you have chosen the right answer. A battery is committed when defendant intentionally offensively touches plaintiff's body or "some intimate extension of the plaintiff's person." Dobbs ยง 4.9. Some precedents even extend this principle to the car a person is driving. If a person in a cocoon of metal, plastic, and glass is battered by contact with the car, as the precedents say, a person on a horse surely is battered by contact with the horse.
The question does not state, but if the horse fell over and plaintiff contacted the ground, that too would be a battery for causing the offensive or harmful contact with the ground.
D puts sugar into gas tank, destroying the engine of P's car
Conversion of Chattels
D actually was swinging at P but struck horse instead. Trespass to chattel.
To answer this question, you needed to recognize that the question presented a situation of transferred intent. You then needed to reason out that trespass to chattels, because it grew out of the old common law writ of trespass, does fall within the ambit of transferred intent.
Great. You followed both steps to the correct answer. D intended a battery (or assault) to P but struck P's chattel instead. The intent transfers. This is a trespass to chattels.
Danny Dolt is not bright. An adult, he holds only a third grade education. He does like to laugh. Paul enters a stall in the mens' room. Danny props a chair against the door. Paul is trapped. Danny laughs. Paul escapes hours later. Paul is angry. Paul sues Danny for false imprisonment. Danny testifies he means no harm and thinks Paul should laugh too. Paul is not laughing. You believe Danny is testifying in good faith to the best of his mental ability. Danny's defense is his mental condition prevents him from forming the intent necessary for an intentional tort.
Danny had the intent to commit the tort of false imprisonment. True, or False?
True.
You're probably correct. This question asks what the approach of the law should be to intentional torts committed by persons of severely limited mental understanding. While a reasonable person clearly would understand the likely consequences of his actions, intentional torts are not about the reasonable person. Danny does not understand or desire the consequences of his actions. Even so, the choice of the court is between denying compensation to an innocent wronged plaintiff or assessing damages against an (innocent) wrongdoer. The choice would be the one you have made: to compensate the innocent plaintiff.