California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCTortsMedium
A disgruntled former employee, seeking revenge against their previous employer, intentionally accessed the company's internal network using a stolen password. The employee viewed confidential client lists but did not copy, alter, or delete any data. The company discovered the unauthorized access through system logs. Can the company successfully sue the former employee for trespass to chattels?
- ANo, because there was no physical interference with tangible personal property.
- BYes, because the unauthorized access constituted a deprivation of possession.
- CYes, because the employee intentionally accessed the network without authorization.
- DNo, because the company did not suffer any actual harm or damage to the data or system.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. No, because the company did not suffer any actual harm or damage to the data or system.
Trespass to chattels requires actual harm to the chattel, deprivation of its use for a substantial time, or dispossession. Since the employee only viewed the data and did not copy, alter, or delete it, the company did not suffer any actual harm or deprivation of use, failing to meet a key element of the tort.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Trespass to chattels can apply to intangible property like digital data if harm is shown.
- B. Viewing data does not typically constitute deprivation of possession unless it prevents the owner's use.
- C. Intentional unauthorized access is an element but not sufficient without harm or dispossession.
Trespass to Chattels (Harm Requirement)
An intentional interference with the right of possession of personal property, requiring actual harm to the chattel, deprivation of its use for a substantial time, or dispossession.
- Requires intentional act.
- Must interfere with right of possession.
- Actual harm, deprivation of use, or dispossession is necessary.
Memory trick: Chattels need a 'touch' of harm or a 'take' to count.