DOCSLIB.ORG

Wins Half a Million by Dan Zobel the Biggest Little City in Southern Illinois May Just Be the Luckiest Little City in Southern Illinois

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wins Half a Million by Dan Zobel the Biggest Little City in Southern Illinois May Just Be the Luckiest Little City in Southern Illinois Volume 41 Number 6 Thursday, February 6, 2020 32 Pages | 75¢ Twardoski conviction, sentence stand he suffered from a mental Furthermore, Brown illness, and Kelley did not opined that Twardoski’s Set 2013 fire in which properly explain the con- claim that he did not under- sequences of stipulating to stand the concept of accept- four Percy children died the facts. Twardoski claims ing evidence by stipulation that he believed he would was refuted by a review of By Travis Lott could not disprove the evi- receive a jury trial, rather the court proceedings. Derrick Twardoski’s mo- dence against him, but he than what amounted to a “The defendant fails to tion for post-conviction never actually admitted to guilty plea. present any evidence in relief has been denied. starting the fire. Randolph County State’s the form of an affidavit to Twardoski, 39, was cov- Twardoski was found Attorney Jeremy Walker support his allegations,” icted of murder after he guilty of one count of immediately filed a motion Brown wrote. was accused of starting a murder by Judge Richard for Twardoski’s motion to Specifically, Brown noted fire at the home of Matt Brown and was sentenced Derrick Twardoski be dismissed. that Twardoski was exam- and Natasha Owen. Four to spend 53 years in prison. Two, he did not receive ef- Brown issued an order ined by Dr. Daniel Cuneo of the couple’s five chil- He lost his subsequent ap- fective counsel from public Friday, denying Twardos- shortly before the proceed- dren, Ethan, 12, Kailey, pellate court ruling. defender James Kelley or ki’s motion. ings that he claimed to not 9, and twins Landan and Twardoski filed a mo- from defenders at the ap- In the order, Brown states understand. Brandan, 5, were unable to tion for post-conviction pellate court, and three, that the majority of the Cuneo found that Twar- escape and died in the May relief in October 2019, al- evidence was improperly allegations in the motion doski was fit to stand trial 10, 2013 blaze. leging three factors: One, entered during the sentenc- have been either previously and noted in his report In 2014, Twardoski stipu- he was not properly in- ing hearing that prejudiced raised during appeal, or that Twardoski’s claims lated to the facts of the formed about the possible the judge against him. could have been raised and case, meaning that he sentence he would receive. Twardoski argued that were not, and are waived. Continued on Page 5 ____ ‘Kevin B.’ wins half a million By Dan Zobel The biggest little city in southern Illinois may just be the luckiest little city in southern Illinois. Kevin Barlow, 58, of Steel- eville is half a million dollars richer after win- ning one of two grand prizes given away during the Rocket Mortgage Su- per Bowl Squares Sweep- stakes. The winners were an- nounced during the Nation- al Football League Super Kevin Barlow Bowl between the Kansas City Chiefs and San Fran- his job at Egyptian Electric. cisco 49ers, which was won Monday morning, Barlow 31-20 by the Chiefs. started using the process “I kind of went numb of elimination to figure out and was in shock (when I if it was him, even calling Bald eagle Sanibel perches on Sandra Lowe’s arm as naturalist Tess Rogers, far learned about it),” Barlow another Steeleville resident right, delivers the World Bird Sanctuary presentation. said. “I didn’t know about with the same first name it until a buddy told me. and last initial to see if he I said, ‘Are you pulling a had entered the contest, trick on me?’ It was 5:30 which he had not. Eagle Fest was a success in the morning when he “All day Monday I was called me. When I looked thinking I would get a By Travis Lott gle and, of course, a bald said. on the computer, I was hop- phone call from them,” Bar- With temperatures climb- eagle. The second presentation ing it was me.” low said. “At work, I was ing to record-breaking lev- The Bateleur, named was given by Bob Tarter, Rocket Mortgage released on pins and needles with els for the first weekend in Tsavo, entertained the wildlife biologist and owner only the first name and last nerves. Finally, at home, February, Eagle Fest at the crowd as it puffed up its of Animalogy of Tennessee. initial of the winners. around 5, I got the phone Jerry F. Costello Lock and chest and cawed loudly to Animalogy, formerly Barlow was not officially call saying it was me.” Dam saw larger-than-ever assert its dominance over known as Natural History notified until Monday even- crowds. those in attendance. Educational Company of ing after he got home from Continued on Page 5 ____ Hundreds of bird enthu- Rogers explained that this the Midsouth, is a veteran siasts flocked to the lock was natural for the color- presenter at Eagle Fest. and dam to catch presenta- ful bird, as it felt it was in At each visit, Tarter tions and to try to spot the charge of the room. shares a different theme nation’s official bird as it This year’s bald eagle, with his live exhibits. This Stork named to lead nests along the Mississippi Sanibel, which was res- year’s theme was edible and Kaskaskia rivers. cued by the sanctuary, has animals. For the first World Bird a broken wing. Realizing One by one, Tarter Sparta public works Sanctuary presentation that there was no chance of brought out animals such of the day, the standing- restoring this injured bird as a patagonian cavy (a By Dan Zobel room-only crowd spilled to the wild, she was made large rabbit-like rodent), The city of Sparta is bring- out of the tent and left some an educational ambassador. hedge hog, prairie dog and ing back a position to help trying to peek in from the Rogers also explained an iguana. While these are run the street and water/ outside. how items, especially lead not animals one would nor- sewer departments. The bird sanctuary, based fishing lures or lead shot mally think to eat, Tarter Ron Stork, 65, was hired in Valley Park, Missouri, used by hunters can be explained the nutritional during a January 31 spe- did not disappoint. harmful to eagles when benefits of each and where cial meeting to become Tess Rogers, sanctuary they eat the fish or animals they are regularly con- public works director to field studies coordina- exposed to the substance. sumed. oversee the operations of tor and naturalist, talked A tiny sliver of lead is To learn more about Ani- those two departments. while volunteer Sandra enough to poison and po- malogy, visit animalogy. Commissioners Bobby Lowe carried the birds of tentially kill an eagle in org. Klausing, Michael Kelley prey on her arm. the wild. For more about the bird and Jason Schlimme voted The sanctuary presented “Lead poisoning is a lead- sanctuary, visit worldbird- yes. Commissioner Nath- two eagles: a Bateleur ea- ing killer of eagles,” Rogers sanctuary.org. aniel Ward voted present. Ron Stork Commissioner Gary Ste- phens was absent. employees, advise on fu- The contract is a four-year ture projects, prepare cost agreement, ending Febru- estimates, manage special ary 2, 2024. Stork’s salary projects and coordinate for each year in succession work with outside contrac- will be $45,000, $50,000, tors. $55,000 and $60,000. Stork, who owns Ron’s Stork, who will work Construction Services, has with city manager Corey been in construction for 49 Rheinecker, will have a years. number of responsibilities, He said his company will including to merge the pub- continue but be a little lic utilities personnel into more limited, and he had one cohesive unit, manage already started to cut back. the day-to-day operations “I was the street commis- of each department, make sioner years ago and have necessary decisions in fur- always had a love for the therance of his job duties and responsibilities, direct Continued on Page 5 ______ Animalogist Bob Tarter shows a pygmy hedgehog to Luke and Jack Kennedy of Modoc. Willis Publishing Inc. © Copyright 2020 MONEY $AVING COUPONS INSIDE! PAGE 2 COUNTY JOURNAL | FEBRUARY 6, 2020 POLICE Man arrested for home invasion, fi ghting police By Travis Lott alcohol and/or drugs,” been offi cially charged A Centreville man Lukes said. as of Monday morning, faces serious charges Police attempted to but Randolph County after he was arrested detain Williams, but State’s Attorney Jer- February 1 in Sparta. he allegedly refused emy Walker said he an- According to police, and began fi ghting ticipates fi ling charges a resident of an apart- with offi cers. for home invasion and ment in the 200 block Offi cers used a taser aggravated battery of a of East 4th Street in on Williams, which police offi cer. Sparta called 911 at was not effective, Lukes Home invasion is a 12:48 a.m., reporting Class X felony, which The scene of the accident last Thursday at Calvary Cemetery Road that a man was break- carries a mandatory ing into her home. sentence of six to 30 According to Spar- years in prison. ta Police Chief Sean Aggravated battery Campbell Hill collision of a police offi cer is a Lukes, David Williams, mately 2:20 p.m., Jus- Campbell Hill. Class 2 felony, with a A head-on collision 40, had pushed in the tin Knop, 37, of Camp- Both drivers were potential of three to resulting in minor in- air conditioning win- bell Hill was driving transported to a local seven years behind juries occurred Janu- dow unit to gain entry a 2001 Volkswagen hospital.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 4 The Scholarship of Richard A. Epstein Summer 2009 Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age Catherine M. Sharkey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Sharkey, Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 677 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss4/2 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sharkey: Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age TRESPASS TORTS AND SELF-HELP FOR AN ELECTRONIC AGE Catherine M. Sharkey* INTRODU CTION ................................................................................................................ 678 1. SELF-HELP: THE MISSING THIRD REMEDY .......................................................... 679 II. CONCEPTUALIZING SELF-HELP IN CYBERTRESPASS DOCTRINE ........................... 684 A. Self-Help in Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case ................................................... 684 1. Threshold Prerequisite to Invoke Legal Process ................................... 684 2. Liability for Evasion of Self-Help ........................................................ 687 B. Self-Help "Opt-Out" as Affirmative Defense ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trespass to Land in North Carolina Part II -- Remedies for Trespass Dan B
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 47 | Number 2 Article 3 2-1-1969 Trespass to Land in North Carolina Part II -- Remedies for Trespass Dan B. Dobbs Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dan B. Dobbs, Trespass to Land in North Carolina Part II -- Remedies for Trespass, 47 N.C. L. Rev. 334 (1969). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol47/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRESPASS TO LAND IN NORTH CAROLINA PART II. REMEDIES FOR TRESPASSt DAN B. DOBBS* Having discussed the substantive law of trespass to land in the pre- ceding issue of this volume, the author now turns to an examination of the remedies available in an action for trespass in North Carolina. A reading of the article suggests that the availability of both legal and equitable remedies affords the North Carolina judge considerable latitude in fashioning relief to fit the particular facts of each case. The author covers the legal remedy of money damages, including stat- utory and restitutionary measures of damages, and the equitable rem- edy of injunction. INTRODUCTION Part I of this article considered the substantive law of trespass to land in North Carolina.** When substantive law determines that a trespass has been committed, there remains the problem of selecting an appropriate remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts -- Trespass to Land -- Unintentional and Non- Negligent Entry As a Defense Wilton Rankin
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 36 | Number 2 Article 21 2-1-1958 Torts -- Trespass to Land -- Unintentional and Non- Negligent Entry as a Defense Wilton Rankin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilton Rankin, Torts -- Trespass to Land -- Unintentional and Non-Negligent Entry as a Defense, 36 N.C. L. Rev. 251 (1958). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol36/iss2/21 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1958] NOTES AND COMMENTS In Flake v. Greensboro News Co.,15 the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the right of privacy. But there is no indication in that case as to how the court would hold if confronted with facts similar to those in the Gouldman-Taber Pontiac case. EARmiNE L. POTEAT, JR. Torts-Trespass to Land-Unintential and Non-Negligent Entry as a Defense The early English common law imposed liability for trespass upon one whose act directly brought about an invasion of land in the posses- sion of another. It mattered not that the invasion was intended, was the result of reckless or negligent conduct, occurred in the course of ex- trahazardous activity, or was a pure accident; nor did it matter that no harm resulted. All that seems to have been required was that the actor did the act which in fact caused the entry.- It has been stated by eminent authority that, "The law on this sub- ject is undergoing a process of change.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA ______) KAREN FELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V
    Case 1:08-cv-01557-ESH Document 203 Filed 05/08/11 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) KAREN FELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1557 (ESH) ) KENNETH FELD, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER At the Final Pretrial Conference held April 21, 2011, the Court requested briefing as to the availability of punitive damages for defendant Kenneth Feld’s trespassing counterclaim in light of the Court’s April 20, 2011 Order [Dkt. No. 171] limiting the defendant to nominal damages for this claim. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court will permit defendant to seek punitive damages for this claim. The parties agree that Maxwell v. Gallagher, 709 A.2d 100, 104-105 (D.C. 1998), sets forth the general rule for the District of Columbia that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages unless there is a “basis in evidence for actual damages,” even if only nominal in amount. This is not to say, however, that nominal damages will always give rise to the availability of punitive damages. Under most circumstances, a mere “technical invasion” of a plaintiff’s rights where no actual harm has occurred cannot support punitive damages. Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Parker, 291 A.2d 64, 71 (Md. 1972)). The Court will permit defendant to seek punitive damages in this case for two independent reasons. First, although the Court has precluded Kenneth Feld from seeking Case 1:08-cv-01557-ESH Document 203 Filed 05/08/11 Page 2 of 4 compensatory damages, it did not decide, as a factual matter, that defendant suffered no actual harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts - Trespass to Land - Liability for Consequential Injuries Charley J
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 | Number 4 June 1961 Torts - Trespass To land - Liability for Consequential Injuries Charley J. S. Schrader Jr. Repository Citation Charley J. S. Schrader Jr., Torts - Trespass To land - Liability for Consequential Injuries, 21 La. L. Rev. (1961) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol21/iss4/23 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 862 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. XXI is nonetheless held liable for the results of his negligence. 18 It would seem that this general rule that the defendant takes his victim as he finds him would be equally applicable in the instant type of case. The general rule, also relied upon to some extent by the court in the instant case, that a defendant is not liable for physical injury resulting from a plaintiff's fear for a third person, has had its usual application in situations where the plaintiff is not within the zone of danger.' 9 Seemingly, the reason for this rule is to enable the courts to deal with case where difficulties of proof militate against establishing the possibility of recovery. It would seem, however, that in a situation where the plaintiff is within the zone of danger and consequently could recover if he feared for himself, the mere fact that he feared for another should not preclude recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts Wypadki Fall 2008 Is a Preliminary Version for Use in Studying
    Torts Wypadki Fall 2008 Torts I Eric E. Johnson University of North Dakota School of Law This document has not been reviewed by Prof. Johnson for legal or factual accuracy. Preliminary Printing Not Authorized for Exam This copy of the Torts Wypadki Fall 2008 is a preliminary version for use in studying. You may not bring this copy with you to the exam to use as a reference. When you sit for the exam, you will be given a clean printed document, which will be the same as this document, except that this cover sheet will be different, and there may be markings on the interior pages to indicate that such pages are part of the official printing authorized for use in the exam. 1 Fall 2008 Torts Wypadki 2 AUTHORIZED Fall 2008 Torts Wypadki Contents 1 DEFINITIONS/TERMS 2 Intentional Torts 2.1 Generally 2.2 [a] Assault 2.3 [b] Battery 2.4 [c] False Imprisonment 2.5 [d] Outrage / IIED 2.6 [e] Trespass to land 2.7 [f] Trespass to chattels 2.8 [g] Conversion 2.9 Intentional Tort Defenses 3 Negligence 3.1 Generally 3.2 [1] Duty 3.3 [2] Standard of care 3.3.1 General standard 3.3.2 Specific standards 3.3.3 Negligence per se 3.4 [3] Breach of duty 3.4.1 Generally 3.4.2 [a] Determination of Unreasonableness 3.4.3 [b] Proof of Breach 3.4.4 [c] Res Ipsa Loquitor 3.5 [4] Actual causation 3.5.1 Generally 3.5.2 [a] But for test 3.5.3 [b] Substantial factor test 3.5.4 [c] Multiple Necessary Causes 3.5.5 [d] Multiple Sufficient Causes 3.5.6 [e] Burden Shifting and Problems in Cause-In-Fact 3.6 [5] Proximate causation 3.7 [6] Damages 3.8 Negligence Defenses 4 Strict Liability 4.1 Generally 4.2 Elements 5 Other Lineal Tort Issues 2 Fall 2008 Torts Wypadki 3 AUTHORIZED DEFINITIONS/TERMS Affirmative Defense The way a defendant can win even if a prima facie case is proven by the plaintiff.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Trespass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 46, Number 2 (Summer 2008) Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Katie Black James Wishart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Environmental Law Commons Commentary Citation Information Black, Katie and Wishart, James. "Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46.2 (2008) : 397-425. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol46/iss2/5 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Abstract Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have caused substantial economic losses by contaminating non- GMO crops and threatening the economic self-determination of non-GMO farmers. After Monsanto v. Schmeiser, biotech IP owners hold most of the rights in the property "bundle" with respect to bioengineered organisms. This commentary highlights the disequilibrium between these broad patent rights and the lack of legal responsibility for harms caused by GMO products. The uthora s propose that there is a role for tort law-- specifically the tort of cattle trespass--in fairly allocating risk and responsibility. The doctrine of cattle trespass reflects a policy of distributive justice, positing that the unique risks associated with keeping living creatures ought to import liability based on the owner's creation and control of those risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Bl-2005
    B.A.LL.B. II SEMESTER LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION BL-2005 TOPIC: Trespass Introduction Trespass is one of the ancient forms of action that arose under the common law of England as early as the 13th century. It was considered a breach of the king’s peace for which the wrongdoer might be summoned before the king’s court to respond in a civil proceeding for the harm caused , because the king’s court were primarily interested in land ownership disputes, the more personal action of trespass developed slowly at first. Around the middle of the 14th century, the clerks of the king’s courts began routinely giving out writs that permitted a plaintiff to begin a trespass action. Before that time criminal remedies for trespass were more common. The courts were primarily concerned with punishing the trespassers rather than compensating the land owner. From the beginning a defendant convicted of trespass was fined; a defendant who could not pay the fine was imprisoned. The fine in this criminal proceeding developed into an award of damages to the plaintiff. This change marked the beginning of tort action under the common law. Meaning and Definition Trespass is the direct interference with another person or his property, which infringes the person’s right to enjoyment of his land, possession of his goods or freedom of movement, Trespass is accountable per se. This means that the claimant only needs to show that the trespass occurred, although it is not necessary to show that the defendant caused any damage or injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Hypotheticals Torts
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • 18:1 Trespass — Elements of Liability 18:2 Intentionally — Defined 18:3 Consent 18:4 Actual Or Nominal Damages
    CHAPTER 18 TRESPASS TO LAND 18:1 Trespass — Elements of Liability 18:2 Intentionally — Defined 18:3 Consent 18:4 Actual or Nominal Damages 18:1 TRESPASS — ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY For the plaintiff, (name), to recover from the defendant, (name), on (his) (her) claim of trespass, you must find that (both) (all) of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The plaintiff was (the owner) (in lawful possession of) (insert appropriate description of property); and 2. The defendant intentionally (entered upon) (caused another to enter upon) (caused [insert appropriate description] to come upon) that property. (3. The [insert appropriate description] caused physical damage to plaintiff’s property.) If you find that one of these statements has not been proved, then your verdict must be for the defendant. On the other hand, if you find that (both) (all) of these statements have been proved, (then your verdict must be for the plaintiff) (then you must consider the defendant’s affirmative defense(s) of [insert any affirmative defense that would be a complete defense to plaintiff’s claim]). If you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative defenses have) been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant. However, if you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative defenses have) not been proved, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff. Notes on Use 1. Use whichever parenthesized phrase is most appropriate. 2. Paragraph 3 should be used only when the intrusion onto property is intangible.
    [Show full text]
  • Laura Quilter Tech Writing Seminar Fall 2001 Trespass to Chattel Doctrine Applied to Cyberspace
    Laura Quilter Tech Writing Seminar Fall 2001 Trespass to Chattel Doctrine Applied to Cyberspace Briefing Paper (background on trespass to chattel doctrine) I. The Classic Trespass to Chattels Action A. Trespass to Chattels Defined. Trespass to chattels is a common law tort action which provides redress for unauthorized use of or intermeddling with another’s personal property.1 The interference must be intentional; it must be unauthorized; it must be substantial, involving actual harm or a serious infringement of rights, and it must involve physical contact with the property.2 Chattel, or personal property, is defined as physical, tangible property, and is distinguished from both real property and intellectual property. Consent of the owner is a defense to trespass to chattel,3 although the owner can revoke consent, or limit it as to time, place, or other conditions.4 Acting outside the scope of limited privilege may create liability for trespass to chattel.5 Defendants may raise other defenses to trespass to chattel, including a privilege for using public utilities.6 Although trespass to chattel derives from the same historical roots as trespass to land, the two actions have diverged significantly in modern law. While the doctrine of trespass to land continues to play a significant role in the law, trespass to chattel has largely fallen into disuse. Serious infringements to possessory rights have generally been remedied using the conversion doctrine, discussed in Section I.A.3, below. 1 Keeton, W. Page. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Edition. 1984. Section 14, p. 85; and Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 217-218 (1965).
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 7 Husband and Wife Were Married in 1993. Their Marriage Has
    QUESTION 7 Husband and Wife were married in 1993. Their marriage has been stormy and arguments have been frequent, but there has been no history of physical violence. They separated three months ago, and Wife recently filed for hvorce. Yesterday evening, Husband arrived at Wife's apartment unannounced, pounded on the door, and demanded entry. After a heated argument, Husband grabbed Wife's kitten by the neck, took a knife from a kitchen drawer, and slashed the struggling kitten's throat. Husband held the bleeding, dying kitten in front of Wife's face. When Wife attempted to reach for the phone, Husband cut the cord. After several minutes, Husband dropped the dead lutten onto the bloodstained carpet, rinsed the knife in the sink, and left the apartment. As Husband was leaving, he said: "Unless you drop the divorce action and move back home, the same thing could happen to you. Think about that!" QUESTION: What potential causes of action, in tort, might Wife bring against Husband? DISCUSSION FOR QUESTION 7 In considering A's potential tort causes of action against B, three intentional torts should be considered: 1. Intentional infliction of severe emotional distress; 2. Assault; and 3. Damage to property (conversion and trespass). I . INTERSPOUSAL TORT"IMMUNITYDOES NOT BAR ACTION Although the parties are still legally married, interspousal tort immunity should not operate as a bar. Interspousal tort immunity has been abrogated in most American jurisdictions, and even where it has been retained, it's application is generally limited to negligent, rather than intentional, torts. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1977), Sec.
    [Show full text]