## Facts

- E. W. Rouse owned a 1960 Ford Falcon and visited Russell-Vaughn Ford, Inc. to discuss trading it for a new Ford.
- After negotiations on consecutive nights failed, Rouse returned again and, during negotiations, salesman Virgil Harris asked for and received Rouse’s Falcon keys.
- When Rouse rejected a proposed trade and demanded his keys back, the salesmen claimed they did not know where the keys were.
- Rouse repeatedly asked multiple dealership employees for the keys; employees allegedly watched and laughed while he sought their return.
- Rouse called police; an officer responded, was told the keys were not held by the salesman questioned, and suggested Rouse obtain a spare set of keys from home.
- The keys were later returned in a taunting manner; evidence indicated an employee threw the keys at Rouse, called him a “crybaby,” and said they wanted to see him “cry a while.”
- A salesman testified it was a common practice in the car business to “lose” potential customers’ keys to keep them at the dealership during sales efforts.
- Rouse sued the dealership and individuals for conversion and conspiracy to convert; a jury awarded $5,000.

## Issues

1. Whether intentionally withholding an automobile’s keys, without moving the vehicle, can constitute conversion of the automobile by substantially interfering with the owner’s dominion and control.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding of willful, wrongful conduct sufficient to sustain conversion and conspiracy to convert.
3. Whether the owner’s ability to obtain a spare set of keys defeats conversion liability or materially limits damages.
4. Whether a $5,000 verdict, including punitive damages, was excessive.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment for Rouse.
- The court held the evidence permitted a finding that defendants converted the automobile by intentionally withholding the keys and depriving Rouse of effective use and control.
- The court upheld submission of conversion and conspiracy to convert to the jury based on evidence of coordinated, deliberate conduct.
- The court held the availability of a spare key did not bar liability where defendants exercised dominion inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- The court upheld the $5,000 award, including punitive damages, as supported by evidence of willful, insulting, and oppressive conduct and not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- Conversion may be established by an intentional exercise of dominion or control over property that substantially interferes with the owner’s right to possession and use; physical removal of the chattel is not required.
- Withholding an essential means of access or operation (such as keys) can constitute conversion of the underlying chattel when the interference effectively deprives the owner of control.
- The owner’s potential work-around (such as obtaining a spare key) does not negate conversion when the defendant’s conduct is a deliberate assertion of control inconsistent with the owner’s rights.
- Punitive damages may be awarded in a conversion action when the interference is willful, malicious, or attended by insulting or oppressive circumstances.
- Evidence of coordinated conduct by multiple agents of a business may support a claim that they acted together to effect a conversion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a conversion verdict where dealership employees intentionally withheld a customer’s car keys to pressure a sale, concluding the conduct could be treated as conversion of the car itself and that the taunting, deliberate interference justified a substantial punitive-damages component in the $5,000 award.


Russell-Vaughn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse, 281 Ala. 567, 206 So. 2d 371 (Ala. 1968)