TORTS I
9.9.09
Midterm: Sept 23rd
BASIC INTENTIONAL TORTS
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997)
 The  is effected by trespass to chattel because of the partial interference in
the use of the property
o Dispossessing the ’s chattel
 Server influenced, it prevented company from assisting
customers but not
 Utilized the Restatement of facts on p. 119 to clarify the interference
Zaslow v. Kroenert (Cal. 1946)
276 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1946)
 An act of conversion was not committed, it was mere intermeddling
o The possessions were moved/interfered with but not converted
permanently away from original possessor
 Conversion
o It is required that the individual must have the intent to effect (not
harm) another from possessing their property
o Check the ***mastering torts book for further definition
Russel-Vaugn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse
206 So. 2d 371
 Alabama was punishing the dealership for bad faith practices
o This was the only tort that was brought to charge so they were
applying such offense to  to deter such future practices
 THIS IS NOT CONVERSION
 This is a court that’s effecting public policy
Kremen v. Cohen
337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003)
 The stumbling block
o The lower courts were considered the domain name as an intangible
Trespass to Land (Quare Clausum Fregit)
 Intent to be present
 Physical presence on, under, or above the land of another
1.
a. Trespass to Land protects a posessor’s interest in exclusive possession
of real property. A person who intentionally and without consent or
privelege enters on, under, or above the land of another commits a
trespass.
i. Taking an unauthorized shortcut across the plaintiff’s lot,
tunneling under it, stringing utility lines above it, or building a
structure on it may be trespasses.
b. Trespass to Chattels is the intentional exercise of dominion or control
over another’s personal property but the act of “taking” is not necessary
for it to be considered a tort.
i. Applies to much more minor interferences
1. The interference causes a partial diminution of the chattel
instead of the total replacement cost
2.
Explain how CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. involved a
trespass to chattels.
a. The ’s caused only a trespass to chattels instead of a conversion because
the Appeals Court could not determine the total cost of diminution
therefore ruling out the possibility of complete replacement of chattel
b. The  may have been in possession of such chattel and inconvenienced
the  yet it is impossible to compute burden when money damages aren’t
reasonably recorded
3.
What is the difference between trespass to chattels and conversion?
a. Trespass to Chattels is much less severe of an interference than
Conversion
i. “The Second Restatement of Torts has marked the distinction by
defining conversion as: “[A]n intentional exercise of dominion or
control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right
of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay
the other the full value of the chattel.” Pg 116
ii. Conversion – “any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over
another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his
rights therein”
b. The two forms of trespass are determined in the calculation of damage
i. “The distinction between conversion and trespass to chattels can
be important because of the way in which damages are calculated”
p. 116
4.
In the case caption for Zaslow v. Kroenert, what is meant by the
designation “Supreme Court of California, in Bank”?
a. California courts choose to avoid the French definition of “en banc” which
translates to “in total” or “the group” when applying to the totality of the
court and all its judges.
b. “In Bank” is an Americanized translation of “en banc” and the courts have
acquired this term instead of the latter
5.
What was the outcome in the trial court in the Zaslow case? What
happened on appeal? Why?
a. Trial Court’s decision to award Zaslow $3,500 was reversed with
directions to the trial court to redetermine the amount of damages
i. “Zaslow is entitled to actual damages in an amount sufficient to
compensate him for any impairment of the property or loss of its
use. But as the evidence shows $3,500 as the highest value placed
upon the goods and it is undisputed that they were not damaged
while in storage for about four months, the amount awarded by
the judgment has no support in the evidence” pg. 121
6.
Why didn’t the plaintiff in Zaslow sue for trespass to land? Who owned
the real property in question?
a. “the act of taking possession of a building and locking it does not, of itself,
constitute a conversion of the personal property therein…” p. 120
i. “Thus, in Poor v. Oakman (104 Mass. 309) a person rightfully took
possession of a building and put a new lock on the door…It was
held that…the possessor of the real estate was not liable for
conversion of the furniture…[one] who removes…chattels
belonging to another, does not assert ownership or control over
them to the extent of making him liable for conversion.” P. 120
ii. Mrs. Kroenert owned the real property in question until about a
month and a half later Chapman took possession, where Zaslow
was able to retrieve his belongings
7.
Assume that Kroenert sold Zaslow’s personal property to Lefty’s Used
Furniture Mart and that Buddy buys the furniture from Lefty’s. Could
Zaslow sue Lefty’s for conversion? Could Zaslow sue Buddy?
a. I believe under the circumstances presented, Zaslow could sue Kroenert
for selling goods that didn’t belong to her.
i. Since the objects/items were at a complete loss, being out of
Kroenert’s possession, one can make the argument that she
incurred a substantial interference against Zaslow and therefore
would potentially incur a damage suit covering the total value of
the items and inconvenience experienced by Zaslow as well.
ii. Under the Bona Fide Purchasers rule, “A person who obtains
property through theft or fraud is liable for conversion. So is one
who later acquires the goods with notice of their illegitimate origin
1. It truly depends on how the items were acquired/procured
but “a thief has no title to stole property and can pass no
rights to a subsequent part. Hence a subsequent bona fide
purchaser who pays full value is a converter…” therefore,
both Lefty’s and Buddy can be held liable for conversion
8.
a.
9.
10.
Assume that Ms. Kroenert induces Mr. Zaslow to sell (i.e., “trade”) his
living room, dining room, and bedroom furniture (with a fair market
value of $3,500) to her in exchange for a Georgia O’Keefe painting
owned by Kroenert entitled “Decomposed Cow Parts on the Prairie.”
Although Kroenert knew that the painting was a forgery and virtually
worthless, Zaslow was unaware of Kroenert’s deception. Kroenert sells
the furniture to Jones, but Jones has no idea of the swindle that Kroenert
pulled on Zaslow. Could Zaslow sue Jones for conversion? What if
Kroenert bragged to Jones about the details of how she “pulled one over
on that sap, Zaslow”?
Under what circumstances does destruction or removal of a part of a
chattel result in conversion of the entire chattel rather than merely
conversion of the part? For example, if you steal a tire, do you convert
the car?
a. The removal of the tire, causes the vehicle to cease functioning as a
vehicle. The car won’t drive down the road if the there are only three
wheels
i. Therefore if there is a destruction or removal that causes
impairment or discontinuation, then the situation is considered a
conversion rather than Trespass to Chattels.
ii. THIS IS NOT CONVERSION BECAUSE ONE CAN BUY A NEW TIRE
AND HAVE IT FULLY FUNCTIONING AGAIN.
1. CONVERSION when the vehicle is converted to a level
unfixable by the 
How can you explain the court’s rejection in Russell-Vaughan Ford, Inc. v.
Rouse of the argument that “there was no conversion of since the
plaintiff could have called his wife, at home, who had another set of
keys”? Why did the court find it important to impose liability for
conversion rather than trespass to chattels?
a. The court found nothing in their cases which would “require the plaintiff
to exhaust all possible means of gaining possession of a chattel which is
withheld from him by the defendant, after demanding its return.”
i. The customer didn’t need to call his wife to get keys that were
with him when he originally arrived at the dealership. His rights
were removed from acquiring the vehicle and it was converted
appropriately
1. In Compton v. Sims [96 So. 185 (Ala. 1923)]
a. After an individual demanded the keys to his
automobile the  in possession, decided to withhold
them from the ’s persons and the court decided
that without the keys, he could not move the vehicle,
which amounted to a conversion of the automobile.
i. “conversion may consist, not only in an
appropriation of the property to one’s own
use, but in its destruction, or in exercising
dominion over it in exclusion or defiance of
plaintiff’s right…” p.123
11.
In Kremen v. Cohen, suppose that Network Solutions had not transferred
the name “sex.com” to another person, but simply lost the records of the
registration. As a result, another person was allowed to register and use
the name for commercial benefit. Would Network Solutions be liable for
conversion?
a. Although pulled from a case battle over the possession of human tissue,
Moore v. Regenst of the Univer. Of Cal, 793 P.2d 479 concluded that “To
establish a conversion, [a] plaintiff must establish an actual interference
with his ownership or right of possession…” p.132
i. In this case, Network Solutions could possibly argue that Kremen
would not have had the chance to establish a right of possession
because the ownership was never established. Therefore,
preventing Kremen from seeking charges of conversion against
their persons.
12.
What is a bailee? What rules have developed regarding bailees and
conversion?
a. A bailee is an individual who is temporarily holding goods belong to
others
b. Rules protecting bailees against conversion
i. A bailee without notice that a chattel is lost or stolen is not liable
for conversion merely by reason of receiving it
ii. A bailee who, without notice of other claims, redelievers a chattel
to its bailor is not liable for conversion, even though the bailor is
not the rightful possessor
iii. A bailee who redelivers a chattel to one entitled to immediate
possession is not liable to the actual bailor for conversion
c. Rules holding bailees responsible for conversion
i. A bailee with knowledge or reason to know that the bailor has no
right to deliver the chattel becomes liable for conversion by
receiving the goods
ii. A bailee with notice of multiple claims to a chattel is under an
absolute duty to redeliver the chattel to its true owner. (the
bailee’s difficulty may be avoided by a relatively simple procedure
whereby, pursuant to statute, the bailee deposits the goods in
court and asks the court to resolve the dispute)
13.
Look at the case caption for Kremen. What type of court is the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?2 What makes this a
“federal case”?
a. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is known for
being “the first federal courts designed exclusively to hear cases on
appeal from trial courts. In an effort to relieve the caseload burden in the
Supreme Court and to handle a dramatic increase in federal filings,
Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1891, established nine courts of appeals,
one for each judicial circuit.”
(http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/ca_frm!OpenFrameSet)