Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsEasy
A professional photographer set up his expensive camera equipment on a public sidewalk to capture a unique cityscape angle. A passerby, annoyed by the obstruction, intentionally kicked the tripod, causing the camera to fall and sustain minor cosmetic damage. The photographer can likely sue the passerby for:
- ABattery, because the passerby's actions were intentional and caused harm.
- BNegligence, as the passerby acted carelessly.
- CConversion, due to the intentional interference with his property.
- DTrespass to Chattels, as there was an intentional interference causing minor damage.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Trespass to Chattels, as there was an intentional interference causing minor damage.
Trespass to chattels occurs when there is an intentional interference with another's personal property (chattel) that causes minor harm or deprivation of use. Here, the kicking of the tripod was intentional and caused minor cosmetic damage, fitting this tort perfectly.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Battery involves intentional harmful or offensive contact with a person, not property.
- B. The act was intentional ('intentionally kicked'), not merely careless, so negligence is not the appropriate tort.
- C. Conversion requires a substantial interference with the chattel, essentially depriving the owner of its use or value. Minor cosmetic damage is not substantial enough.
Trespass to Chattels
An intentional interference with the plaintiff's chattel (personal property) that causes minor harm or temporary deprivation of use.
- Requires intent to interfere with the chattel (not necessarily intent to harm).
- Interference can be dispossession, use, or damage.
- Harm must be less substantial than conversion (minor damage, temporary deprivation).
Memory trick: Property Torts: Touch, Take, or Tread.