## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains trespass to chattels within the intentional torts framework, including:

- Identifying the elements of trespass to chattels and recognizing actionable interference with personal property, including intermeddling and dispossession, so you can quickly determine when minor contact with a chattel crosses the line into a tested intentional tort on the MBE.
- Distinguishing trespass to chattels from conversion by evaluating the seriousness, extent, and duration of interference, and by matching each fact pattern with the correct remedy—repair costs, loss-of-use damages, return of the chattel, or full market-value recovery.
- Applying the intent requirement to exam-style hypotheticals, including scenarios involving mistake of ownership, borrowed items, transferred intent, and good-faith emergencies, and explaining why intent to do the physical act—not intent to harm—is sufficient for liability.
- Evaluating defenses and privileges such as consent, self-defense, defense of property, recapture of chattels, and private necessity, and predicting how they alter liability and damages when a defendant intentionally interferes with another’s personal property.
- Practicing rapid, exam-focused issue spotting by classifying sample fact patterns as no liability, trespass to chattels, or conversion, and articulating concise rule statements that can be deployed accurately under timed MBE or essay conditions.

## **MBE Syllabus**

For the MBE, you are required to understand intentional torts to property, including trespass to chattels, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Elements of trespass to chattels and what counts as actionable interference
- The intent requirement, including mistake and transferred intent
- The need for actual damage, dispossession, or loss of use and limits on nominal damages
- Distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion, including factors courts consider
- Remedies and damages: repair, loss of use, and when full value is appropriate
- Defenses and privileges affecting liability for interference with personal property

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Which of the following is NOT required to establish trespass to chattels?  
   a) Intent to interfere with another’s chattel  
   b) Actual damage or dispossession  
   c) Intent to cause harm  
   d) Causation

2. A defendant borrows a neighbor’s bicycle without permission for two hours and returns it undamaged. Which tort, if any, has the defendant most likely committed?  
   a) Trespass to chattels  
   b) Conversion  
   c) No tort  
   d) Nuisance

3. Which remedy is generally NOT available for trespass to chattels?  
   a) Nominal damages without any interference, damage, or loss of use  
   b) Damages for loss of use  
   c) Cost of repair  
   d) Return of the chattel

## **Introduction**

Trespass to chattels protects a person’s interest in the possession and use of personal property. It fills the gap between:

- **Negligence**, which focuses on carelessness rather than intentional interference, and
- **Conversion**, which deals with serious, ownership-like interference and supports recovery of the chattel’s full value.

Trespass to chattels covers intentional but **lesser** interferences with another’s personal property that cause actual harm, dispossession, or loss of use.

> **Key Term: Trespass to Chattels**  
> An intentional tort in which the defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s right to possess or use personal property, by damaging it, using it, or dispossessing the plaintiff, resulting in actual harm, dispossession, or loss of use.

### Elements of Trespass to Chattels

To establish trespass to chattels, a plaintiff must prove:

1. An act by the defendant interfering with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel
2. Intent to perform the act that causes the interference
3. Causation
4. Actual damage, dispossession, or loss of use

The key is that the interference must be **intentional** and must cause some legally cognizable harm.

> **Key Term: Actual Harm (Trespass to Chattels)**  
> Any impairment of the chattel’s condition, quality, or value, or any dispossession or measurable loss of use, even if small in monetary terms.
>
> **Key Term: Loss of Use**  
> A period during which the rightful possessor is deprived of the ability to use the chattel as desired, whether or not the chattel is physically damaged.

### Actionable Interference

Trespass to chattels may occur in two main ways:

- **Intermeddling**: Directly using, handling, or damaging the plaintiff’s chattel
- **Dispossession**: Taking or withholding possession from the plaintiff for a period of time

> **Key Term: Intermeddling**  
> Physical contact with or use of another’s chattel that interferes with the owner’s dominion by impairing its condition, quality, or value, or by otherwise interfering with its use.

Examples of intermeddling include:

- Scratching or denting a car
- Installing malware on someone’s laptop
- Letting air out of another’s tires
- Overusing or misusing a borrowed device so that its performance deteriorates

> **Key Term: Dispossession**  
> Depriving the rightful possessor of the use or possession of their chattel, even temporarily, by taking it, withholding it, or delivering it to someone else without authority.

Examples of dispossession include:

- Taking a bike for a joyride without permission
- Hiding a co-worker’s phone so they cannot use it
- Wrongfully refusing to return a borrowed item on demand

The interference must be **more than trivial**. Brief, harmless contact that does not affect possession, condition, or use is not actionable.

### Intent Requirement

Trespass to chattels is an intentional tort, but the required intent is narrow:

- The defendant must intend to **do the act** that interferes with the chattel (e.g., to pick it up, to use it, to move it).
- The defendant **need not** intend to commit a legal wrong or to cause harm.

> **Key Term: Intent (Trespass to Chattels)**  
> The purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty to perform the physical act that interferes with another’s chattel; intent to harm, or to interfere legally, is not required.

Key points for intent on the MBE:

- **Mistake of ownership is not a defense.** If the defendant intentionally uses or takes the chattel, it does not matter that they reasonably thought it was theirs.
- **Transferred intent applies.** Intent meant for one chattel or person can satisfy the intent element when another chattel is harmed instead.
- Good faith (e.g., borrowing in an emergency) may affect **damages** or **defenses**, but not the existence of intent.

### Actual Damage or Loss Required

Trespass to chattels differs from trespass to land in its damage requirement:

- Trespass to land is actionable upon any unauthorized entry; **no actual damage** is needed.
- Trespass to chattels **does require** actual harm, dispossession, or loss of use.

If the interference is minor and causes no impairment, no dispossession, and no loss of use, there is **no liability**.

> **Exam angle:** The MBE frequently tests that **mere touching or brief, harmless use of a chattel is not enough**. Look for facts showing either:
>
> - Physical damage or impairment (however slight), or
> - A real deprivation of possession or meaningful use for a period of time.

As to damages:

- The plaintiff may recover **actual damages**, **damages for loss of use** (e.g., rental value or lost profits), or **cost of repair**.
- Nominal damages are generally **not awarded** for a completely harmless technical interference. The interference itself must amount to harm: damage, dispossession, or loss of use.

### Distinction from Conversion

Trespass to chattels and conversion sit on a **continuum** of interference with personal property.

> **Key Term: Conversion**  
> An intentional tort where the defendant exercises control or dominion over another’s chattel so seriously that it is just to require the defendant to pay the chattel’s full market value at the time of interference.

The distinction turns on the **degree and seriousness** of interference. Courts (and examiners) look at factors such as:

- The **extent and duration** of the defendant’s control
- The defendant’s intent to assert a right inconsistent with the plaintiff’s ownership
- The defendant’s good or bad faith
- The **extent of harm** to the chattel
- The expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff

Use these rules:

- **Trespass to chattels**: Lesser interferences – temporary use, minor damage, short-term dispossession. Remedy: damages for loss or repair.
- **Conversion**: Very serious interferences – destruction, sale to a third party, long-term deprivation, or use that effectively destroys the plaintiff’s interest. Remedy: full market value (a forced sale).

Borderline exam scenarios are common: the facts will be crafted so that you must decide whether the interference “crosses the line” to conversion.

### Remedies

For trespass to chattels, the plaintiff may recover:

- The **cost of repair** or diminution in value
- **Damages for loss of use**, such as:
  - Rental value of a substitute item, or
  - Lost profits reasonably attributable to the deprivation
- **Damages for dispossession**, even if the chattel is returned

In appropriate cases, the plaintiff can seek **return of the chattel** (e.g., via replevin). However, **full market value** is reserved for conversion-level interferences.

> **Key Term: Recapture of Chattels**  
> A limited privilege allowing a person to use reasonable, non-deadly force to recover personal property wrongfully taken, usually after first requesting its return, and only when acting promptly and without breaching the peace.

This privilege can operate as a defense when a defendant uses limited force or enters land to recover wrongfully taken chattels, but it is **narrowly** applied and does not excuse unnecessary or excessive interference.

### Defenses and Privileges

Several general intentional tort defenses can defeat trespass-to-chattels liability:

- **Consent**: Express or implied consent to use the chattel (e.g., lending an item) negates wrongfulness, as long as the defendant stays within the scope of consent.
- **Self-defense / Defense of others**: Reasonable force that incidentally damages a chattel while defending against an imminent tort may be privileged.
- **Defense of property**: Reasonable (non-deadly) force to protect one’s property may excuse minor interference with another’s chattel, depending on the circumstances.
- **Recapture of chattels**: As defined above, allows reasonable measures to recover property wrongfully taken.
- **Necessity**: Especially important in property torts.

> **Key Term: Private Necessity**  
> A qualified privilege to interfere with another’s property, including chattels, when reasonably necessary to avoid a greater harm to oneself or one’s property, while remaining liable for actual damage caused.

Under **private necessity**, a person may temporarily use or interfere with another’s chattel to avoid serious harm. The interference is **privileged**, so there is no trespass liability for the act of interference itself, but the actor must **pay for actual damage** done.

#### Worked Example 1.1

A mechanic borrows a customer’s car without permission to drive to lunch and returns it two hours later, undamaged. The customer was unable to use the car during that time. Has the mechanic committed trespass to chattels?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. The mechanic intentionally deprived the customer of possession, causing a loss of use, even though the car was returned undamaged. This temporary dispossession is actionable as trespass to chattels; the customer can recover damages for the loss of use (e.g., rental value or lost opportunities).

### Worked Example 1.2

A person scratches a neighbor’s parked motorcycle, causing minor cosmetic damage but not affecting its function. The neighbor sues for trespass to chattels. Is the claim likely to succeed?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. The defendant intentionally intermeddled with the chattel and caused actual damage (the scratch). The neighbor may recover the reasonable cost of repair. The fact that the bike still functions does not bar recovery.

### Worked Example 1.3

A student picks up a classmate’s laptop during class, opens a file out of curiosity, and sets it back down within 10 seconds without altering anything. The classmate did not notice at the time and suffered no loss of use. Is the student liable for trespass to chattels?

> **Answer:**  
> Probably not. Although there was intentional contact (intermeddling), there was no damage, no dispossession, and no meaningful loss of use. The interference is too trivial to be actionable; no actual harm is shown.

### Worked Example 1.4

A neighbor reasonably but mistakenly believes that a lawn chair on a shared patio is hers. She takes it into her apartment and uses it for six months. The true owner demands its return. Is this trespass to chattels or conversion?

> **Answer:**  
> This is likely conversion. The neighbor intentionally exercised control over the chair for an extended period, depriving the true owner of possession for months. The mistake of ownership is not a defense. Given the duration and seriousness of the interference, the owner can recover the chair’s full value, not merely rental value.

### Worked Example 1.5

During a sudden storm, a driver sees shopping carts rolling toward his parked car. He grabs a cart belonging to a store and uses it as a wedge to block the others, slightly bending one wheel of the cart but preventing significant damage to his car. The store sues for trespass to chattels. What result?

> **Answer:**  
> The driver can invoke private necessity. Using the cart was reasonably necessary to prevent substantial damage to his own property. The act of interference is privileged, so there is no liability for the decision to use the cart, but the driver must pay for the actual damage to the wheel (cost of repair).

### Exam Warning

On the MBE, focus on **two recurring pitfalls**:

- **No harm, no trespass to chattels**: If the chattel is neither damaged nor dispossessed, and there is no real loss of use, there is no liability—however rude or intrusive the behavior may seem.
- **Degree of interference**: When the fact pattern suggests long-term deprivation, destruction, or sale, think **conversion** and full-value damages, not merely trespass to chattels.

Do not confuse:

- Mere touching or trivial use (no liability), with
- Temporary but meaningful dispossession or measurable impairment (trespass to chattels), and
- Serious, ownership-like interference (conversion).

### Revision Tip

When deciding between trespass to chattels and conversion on an exam:

- Ask how **serious and long-lasting** the interference is.
- If the interference effectively forces a **sale** of the item because the owner has lost it altogether or it is destroyed, choose **conversion**.
- If the owner ultimately gets the chattel back and the harm is limited to repair costs or loss of use, choose **trespass to chattels** and measure damages accordingly.

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Trespass to chattels protects possession and use of personal property, not just physical integrity.
- Actionable interference occurs through **intermeddling** (damage or use) or **dispossession** (loss of possession for a time).
- The defendant must intend the **act** of interference; intent to harm or to commit a legal wrong is not required, and mistake of ownership is no defense.
- Actual harm, dispossession, or loss of use is required; wholly harmless interference is not actionable.
- Trespass to chattels and conversion differ in the **degree** of interference and the **measure of damages**; conversion supports full-value recovery.
- Remedies for trespass to chattels include cost of repair and damages for loss of use; return of the chattel can be sought, but not its full value unless the interference amounts to conversion.
- Defenses and privileges such as consent, recapture of chattels, and private necessity can excuse or limit liability.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Trespass to Chattels
- Intermeddling
- Dispossession
- Intent (Trespass to Chattels)
- Actual Harm (Trespass to Chattels)
- Loss of Use
- Conversion
- Recapture of Chattels
- Private Necessity

Intentional torts - Trespass to chattels