All of the possible torts violated:
Assault
-
Assault is the intentional infliction of a reasonable apprehension of imminent contact that
would be harmful or offensive. Here, when Dan became enraged and swung his
chainsaw at Ryan, Dan satisfied the elements of assault. Through his enrage, Dan
purposefully swung his chainsaw which put Ryan in a fearful state of mind. Therefore
putting him in a place where he could fearfully appreciate that a battery would occur had
he not moved out of the way. It is safe to say that Ryan acted in a manner that a
reasonable person would under similar circumstances. Dan’s action placed Ryan in
actual and reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact with the chainsaw.
Trespass to land
-
Trespass to land is an intentional tort that requires the plaintiff to prove ownership or
possessory interest in the land and that there be an intentional invasion, intrusion, or
entry onto the land by the defendant. Here, though Dan reasonably believed he was on
Stephenie’s land given the surveyor’s guidelines, he was in fact on Ryan’s land. Ryan
clearly owned the land. Dan was intentionally on Ryan’s land without Ryan’s permission.
Not only was he on the land without previous permission, Dan continued to stay on the
land after Ryan had asked him to leave the property. Dan’s presence is s sufficient
intrusion and satisfies the elements on trespass to land.
Trespass to Chattel
-
Trespass to chattels is an intentional tort that requires a plaintiff to prove the defendant
intentionally dispossessed, used, or intermeddled with a chattel of plaintiff’s possession
and that interference with the chattel causes some injury. Here, Dan intentionally cut
down the trees which does satisfy all the elements of trespass to chattel.
Conversion of Chattel
-
Conversion of chattel requires an intentional dominion/ control over the item that
seriously interferes with the right of the owner to control it. When determining the
seriousness of the interference, courts followed a factors test. This test looks at the
extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion/control, the actor’s intent to
assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control, the actor’s good faith,
the harm done to the chattel and the inconvenience and expense caused. Here, Dan
was cutting down the trees for an hour and a half. During that time he had successfully
chopped down two of the trees, creating a large pile of firewood onto Ryan’s property.
Which satisfies the first element of the test. Dan did in fact act to an extent that
exercised dominion over the property. When Ryan had asked Dan to leave his property
but Dan refused, Dan then intentionally asserted a right that was inconsistent with
Ryan’s right of control. Though Dan was acting in a good faith belief by reasonably
thinking these trees were on Stephanie’s property, Dan did serious harm the chattels.
There is no way to repair the actions of Dan. You cannot rebuild a tree that has been cut
down. As noted, Ryan enjoyed these trees. He often used them to bring peace by
relaxing in their shade. Dan’s removal of two of the trees, causes a major inconvenience
to Ryan’s ability to enjoy their shade. Dan successfully converted Ryan’s chattels
through his destruction of them.
Possible defenses:
Self-defense (Ryan)
-
self-defense is a possible defense that could be used here. One is entitled to use
reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact. Here,
Ryan was reasonably in fear after Dan’s actions with his chainsaw. No matter the threat
was intentionally imposed or merely negligent, self-defense is an applicable and legally
acceptable defense. Here the harm was imminent and resulted from the swinging of a
potentially dangerous tool.
Defense of Property (Ryan)
-
similar to the above, Ryan properly defended his property. Under this defense, one may
use reasonable force to defend their property. Ryan, while fearful of the chainsaw
harming him, was in reasonable belief that the use of force (brandishing his weapon)
was necessary to prevent or to terminate Dan’s intrusion. Dan’s intrusion was not
privileged and Ryan did request that Dan leave his property but Dan refused initially.
Questions:
1. D
2. A
3. B …. Or D but im going to go with B because that was my gut answer but this one is
tricky
4. Damnit Im going B here. I am getting in my head and now I feel like I know nothing  C
5. A right? Like this is easy? Right? Like? Wait no this is C. I am going C final answer.
6. C – damnit Im not sure on any of these.  A
7. D ????? ugh
8. C and D  B and D
9. C  B
10. Between A and D here. Lets go D because I don’t think the paying matters here. Its more
about the wrongful interference.
11. D
12. D – I hate that it says ‘no valid defense’ such strong words but going D
13. I think its D but im not 100% sure if Leslie really did trespass?? But let’s go D
14. B
15. B .. I think  C