FYLSX Intentional Torts to Property & Nuisance — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Dan walks across a field he honestly and reasonably believes is his own. The field actually belongs to Paula. Dan causes no damage. If Paula sues Dan for trespass to land, what is the most likely result?
- Dan is not liable because his mistake was reasonable
- Dan is not liable because Paula suffered no actual damages
- Dan is liable because he intended to enter the land, even though he was mistaken about who owned it (Correct answer)
- Dan is liable only if he acted negligently
Correct answer: Dan is liable because he intended to enter the land, even though he was mistaken about who owned it
Trespass to land only requires an intent to enter the particular land. A mistake about who owns it, even a reasonable one, is not a defense. Actual damage is not required, so Paula can at least recover nominal damages.
Question 2: Without permission, Al borrows Beth's laptop for an hour. He returns it undamaged. Which tort has Al most likely committed, and what can Beth recover?
- Conversion; the full market value of the laptop
- Trespass to chattels; damages for the actual harm or loss of use (Correct answer)
- Trespass to land; nominal damages
- No tort, because the laptop came back undamaged
Correct answer: Trespass to chattels; damages for the actual harm or loss of use
A brief, minor interference with someone else's personal property is trespass to chattels, and the plaintiff recovers actual damages such as loss of use. Conversion is reserved for interference serious enough to justify making the defendant pay the chattel's full value (a forced sale).
Question 3: Which factor most clearly separates conversion from trespass to chattels?
- Whether the defendant acted intentionally
- How seriously the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's right to control the chattel (Correct answer)
- Whether the chattel was located on real property
- Whether the plaintiff was present when the interference happened
Correct answer: How seriously the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's right to control the chattel
Both torts require intent. Conversion is an interference so serious that the defendant can fairly be made to pay the chattel's full value. Courts weigh the duration, the extent of the harm, and the defendant's good or bad faith.
Question 4: Nora breeds orchids that are unusually sensitive to light. Her neighbor installs ordinary porch lights, and the light harms only Nora's orchids. A normal person would not be bothered by the lights. Is the neighbor liable for private nuisance?
- Yes, because any interference with the use of land is a nuisance
- Yes, because the neighbor intended to install the lights
- No, because a nuisance requires a physical invasion by a tangible object
- No, because the interference has to be substantial and unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because the interference has to be substantial and unreasonable to a person of ordinary sensibilities
Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another person's use and enjoyment of their land. It is measured by how an ordinary person would react. Harm suffered only because of a plaintiff's unusual sensitivity does not count.
Question 5: A factory illegally blocks a public highway, and everyone who drives the route is inconvenienced. What must a private individual show to sue the factory for public nuisance?
- Damages greater than $1,000
- An injury different in kind from the one suffered by the general public (Correct answer)
- That the individual owns land next to the highway
- That the factory acted with malice
Correct answer: An injury different in kind from the one suffered by the general public
A public nuisance interferes with a right shared by the whole community, and it is normally redressed by public officials. A private person can sue only if they suffered a special injury that is different in kind, not just in degree, from what the public suffered.
Question 6: Homeowners move next to a pig farm that has operated there for 30 years, and then sue the farm for nuisance over the odor. How does the fact that they 'came to the nuisance' affect their claim under the majority rule?
- It completely bars recovery
- It is irrelevant to the claim
- It is a factor in deciding whether the interference is unreasonable, but it does not automatically bar recovery (Correct answer)
- It moves the burden of proof to the farm
Correct answer: It is a factor in deciding whether the interference is unreasonable, but it does not automatically bar recovery
Under the majority approach, coming to the nuisance does not bar the claim by itself. It is one factor courts consider when deciding whether the interference is unreasonable, unless the plaintiff bought the land specifically to bring a lawsuit.
