Practice Hypotheticals

Torts

Evaluation sheet: “Farmer Dell’s Cornfield” Farmer Dell v. Ben

Trespass to land Issue: Whether Ben committed a trespass to Dell’s land when...... Rule: “Trespass to land usually requires an intentional entry upon land of another. Intent includes either purpose to enter or substantial certainty that entry will take place.” The object of the intent need not be to “trespass.” Defendant is liable for damages even if no harm is done to the land. See Dobbs, Torts and Compensation, 2d edition. P. 62. Restatement Second of Torts § 158 Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or(b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove Application: Ben committed trespass because: He had intent to enter Dell’s land because...... He entered the land because...... Application facts: walked onto Dell’s cornfield; wanted corn for his dinner.

Trespass to chattel Issue: Whether Ben committed a trespass to...... when...... Rule: “Trespass to chattels involves some intermeddling with a chattel of another person, and at times even dispossession, but something short of a conversion.” See Dobbs, Torts and Compensation, 2d edition. P. 66. “Liability is imposed only if the possessor of the chattel suffers dispossession or lost use, or if the chattel or the possessor is harmed. Rest. §218. Liability is based on actual damage, not on the market value of the chattel.” Dobbs, Torts and Compensation, 2d edition. P. 66.

Restatement Second of Torts § 217 Ways of Committing Trespass to Chattel A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally(a) dispossessing another of the chattel, or (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.

Applicable facts: Ben told Jerry he wanted to have fresh corn from Dell’s cornfield for dinner; he asked Jerry to stop the car so he could get out and pick the corn Ben picked up Dell’s corn which had fallen to the ground.

Conversion to chattel Issue: Whether Ben picking up the corn up moved beyond trespass to conversion. Rule: Rest. § 226 Conversion by Destruction or AlterationOne who intentionally destroys a chattel or so materially alters its physical condition as to change its identity or character is subject to liability for conversion to another who is in possession of the chattel or entitled to its immediate possession. Applicable facts: Ben wanted Dell’s corn for dinner. He picked the stalks up off the ground. He planned to take them and eat them for dinner. He never cut the corn from the stalks. He picked up what had fallen to the ground by itself. When Dell shot off his gun, Ben dropped the corn. Dell got his corn back.

Privilege to defend Rule: Rest § 77 Defense of Possession by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm An actor is privileged to use reasonable force, not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to prevent or terminate another's intrusion upon the actor's land or chattels, if (a) the intrusion is not privileged or the other intentionally or negligently causes the actor to believe that it is not privileged, and (b) the actor reasonably believes that the intrusion can be prevented or terminated only by the force used, and (c) the actor has first requested the other to desist and the other has disregarded the request, or the actor reasonably believes that a request will be useless or that substantial harm will be done before it can be made. § 85 Use of Mechanical Device Threatening Death or Serious Bodily HarmThe actor is so far privileged to use a device intended or likely to cause serious bodily harm or death for the purpose of protecting his land or chattels from intrusion that he is not liable for the serious bodily harm or death thereby caused to an intruder whose intrusion is, in fact, such that the actor, were he present, would be privileged to prevent or terminate it by the intentional infliction of such harm.

COMMENTS & ILLUSTRATIONS: Comment: a. Rationale. The actor is privileged to employ deadly force by means of a mechanical device to the same extent to which he is otherwise privileged to use such force. There is no broader privilege, however, to use deadly force by such means. The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit, that a possessor of land has, as is stated in § 79, no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises. And this is true although the possessor cannot prevent the intrusion by any other means, and has not only warned the intruder to desist from his intrusion, but has also warned him that deadly force will be used against him if he does not do so. A possessor of land cannot do indirectly and by a mechanical device that which, were he present, he could not do immediately and in person. Therefore, he cannot obtain a privilege to install, for the purpose of protecting his land from intrusions harmless to the lives and limbs of the occupiers or users of it, a mechanical device whose only purpose is to inflict death or serious harm upon such as may intrude, by giving notice of his intention to inflict, by mechanical means and indirectly, harm which he could not, even after request, inflict directly were he present. Applicable facts: Farmer Dell shouted “Stop or I will shoot.” Dell pointed a shotgun directly at Ben and Jerry. Dell shot the gun. Dell shot the gun into the air and not directly at Ben and Jerry. Jerry had a machete. The facts don’t indicate whether Jerry was holding the machete at this time or whether Dell had even seen it. When Dell shouted the warning, Ben and Jerry stopped in their tracks.

Scarecrow: Dell had a scarecrow in the corn field with a spring-gun; Jerry’s cap had set it off and it decapitated the scarecrow.

Ben v. Dell for assault Issue: Whether Farmer Dell’s act of pointing a shotgun at Ben can be considered an assault. Rule: An assault occurs when one intends to cause apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact and the other is put in apprehension of such contact. Application: Dell intended to cause apprehension because ...... He created apprehension when ...... Applicable facts: He shouted, “stop or I will shoot.” Ben had his back turned to Dell at the time. Ben turned around and saw a shotgun pointed at him.

Farmer Dell v. Jerry Trespass to land Issue: whether Jerry committed a trespass to land when he entered Farmer Dell’s cornfield to retrieve his hat. Rule: same as written for Ben — no need to rewrite Applicable facts: Jerry entered the property to get his hat when it blew off his head.

Trespass and conversion to chattel Issue: whether Jerry committed trespass or conversion to chattel when he took his machete and hacked a path through Dell’s cornfield. Rules: same as written for Ben — no need to rewrite Applicable facts: Jerry used a machete to cut a path through the field. He intended to get them out of his way so he could pass. Necessity defense: Jerry was lost in the cornfield and cut a path through the stalks.

Jerry v. Dell for assault Same as above analysis for Ben but Jerry would have his own claim against Dell based on the same set of facts.