MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Prof. Lohmeyer-Rohrer
Allen Branch
January 27, 2020
Abraham - Claim for Conversion
QUESTION PRESENTED
Is Ted liable for conversion of Abraham’s car when Ted took control of Abraham’s
vehicle, driving it away without permission, and then destroying the car as he inadvertently
crashed it into Abraham’s residence?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes. Ted may be liable for conversion when he destroyed Abraham’s automobile after he
took it from Abraham’s possession and rendered the car unusable.
FACTS
The purpose of the memo is to determine the merits of whether Abraham has a claim
against Ted for conversion of his totaled Lincoln Town Car when Ted took Abraham’s car for a
joyride and then crashed it into his house.
Abraham gave Ted permission to watch his car when he asked Ted to “keep an eye on the
Town Car” while he was in Hawaii. Ted willfully took possession of the car after Bill suggested
to Ted they take the car for a ride around the block.
Ted knew he was taking possession of the car without Abraham’s authority. Ted
effectively admitted he had no permission when he stated that they “had better get the car back in
case Abraham is home and notices that it is missing.” When Ted’s arm hits the gear shift lever
1
on the steering wheel column, shifting the car into drive just as he is pushing the gas pedal to rev
the engine again, Ted caused the car to “lunge” into the house.
Abraham knew that Ted took his car but did not prevent him from taking the car from the
house. Abraham explained he, in fact, was in the car the whole time and admitted he made no
attempt to try to and stop Ted from driving it. Abraham remained crouched in the back seat and
unbeknownst to Bill and Ted while they took the car. Abraham’s car was determined to be totaled
after Ted smashed Abraham’s car through the garage door and crashed it through the exterior
wall of Abraham's house.
Based on the facts of the case, the outcome may hinge on whether Abraham gave de facto
permission to Ted when he failed to prevent Ted from taking the car.
DISCUSSION
Ted may be liable for converting Abraham’s automobile as his own by taking the car
without the owner’s permission, totally destroying it, and thus damaging Abraham by preventing
his use and enjoyment of his property.
In Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that conversion
is a purposeful taking and wrongful interference of another’s personal property without
permission. The court relied on Section 223 of the Second Restatement of Torts to define
conversion’s elements. According to Thoma, conversion may be committed, inter alia, by “1)
intentionally dispossessing another of a chattel 2) intentionally destroying or altering a chattel in
the actor's possession; and 3) using a chattel in the actor's possession without authority so to use
it…” Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, Inc., 360 Mich. 434, 438, 104 N.W.2d 360, 362 (1960).
2
Abraham can claim that Ted wrongfully exercised dominion over his property when Ted
intentionally and substantially took possession of his parked car from the security and safety of
Abraham’s driveway. When Ted subsequently crashed the car into Abraham’s house, Ted totally
demolished and destroyed Abraham’s automobile thereby preventing its use and enjoyment.
Because Ted took the automobile from Abraham’s possession, and without Abraham’s explicit
authority, Ted’s conduct was a substantial factor in rendering Abraham’s property unusable.
Therefore, Abraham will claim he is entitled to the full value of the car when Ted demolished it
and interfered with Abraham’s right to his property.
Ted, on the other hand, will be averse to the claim of conversion. Ted would contend that
he is not liable for conversion because Abraham had knowledge of and effectively consented to
the conversion.
A conversion may be committed “using chattel in the actor’s possession without
authority…” and “refusing to surrender a chattel on demand.” Id. at 434, 438.
Here, Ted will argue that he did not need to have verbal or direct consent. The fact that
Abraham was in the back seat and could have retaken possession at any time could be interpreted
as inferred consent. Had Abraham demanded and Ted refused to surrender possession, then it
could be understood that Ted took total dominion of the automobile. But because Abraham was
in the car and remained silent, Ted will contend that Abraham was still in partial or joint
possession of the automobile and therefore Ted’s actions did not rise to the level of conversion.
See LaPlace v. Briere, 404 N.J. Super. 585, 600, 962 A.2d 1139, 1147 (App. Div. 2009).
3
Abraham would respond to the consent issue that because he asked Ted to “watch” the
car while he was in Hawaii, Ted could be considered a bailee of Abraham’s automobile. A bailee
is liable to the owner for conversion if the bailee’s “intentional or negligent conduct can give rise
to a claim of conversion.” Id. at 1148. Here, Ted watching the car versus taking possession and
wrecking it is conduct inconsistent with permissible activities or reasonable care.
CONCLUSION
Abraham will most likely be able to recover the full market value of the automobile.
Conversion does not require that Ted damaged the car or that he permanently dispossess the
owner of its use. All that is necessary for Ted to be liable is his intentional conduct that resulted
in a serious invasion of Abraham’s property interest, that he took the car without permission, and
that he permanently deprived Abraham of his property.
4