Trespass to Chattels and Conversion CompuSurve, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997) Parties: CompuServe (P); Cyber Promotions (D) Procedural History: P applied for a preliminary injunction Facts: D Cyber Promotions, Inc. and the president Sanford Wallace sent unsolicited e-mails on behalf of themselves and their clients to hundreds of thousands of internet users, many of who were CompuServe subscribers. CompuServe notified defendants and requested that they terminate the practice yet the D sent out an increasing volume of e-mails. D also modified their equipment and the messages they send in such a fashion as to circumvent CompuServes screening software. Issue: Does Ds actions constitute an action for trespass to chattel? Reasoning: The Restatement 217(b) states that trespass to chattel may be committed by intentionally using or intermeddling with the chattel in possession of another. Restatement 217 comment e defines physical intermeddling: intentionally bringing about a physical contact with the chattel. Electronic signals have been considered to be a sufficiently physically tangible to support a trespass cause of action. One who commits trespass to chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel, but only if: (a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or (b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition for a substantial time, or (c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or (d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest. Analysis: Ds multitudinous emails deplete the value of CompuServes equipment even though it is not physically damaged by the Ds conduct. Ds trespass harmed the Ps business reputation and goodwill with its customers and actions are actionable under Restatement 218(d). Conclusion: Ps demonstrated that Ds intrusions into their computer systems harmed the Ps business reputation and goodwill. Court issued a preliminary injunction because the monetary loss was too difficult to compute.

Zazlow v. Kroenert Supreme Court of California, in Bank 167 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1946) Parties: Zaslow (P); Kroenert (D) Procedural History: D is appealing after losing suit for awarding P $3,500. P sued D for conversion. Facts: P and D owned a house as tenants in common which contained furniture owned by Zaslow. D and a person by the name of Chapman entered the home, changed the locks, and removed furniture from the home, placing it in storage. This was done after P was warned that furniture would be removed if P failed to remove it. P did not remove the furniture but instead sued for conversion. Issue: Was the Ds removal of Ps furniture an act of conversion? Reasoning: Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over anothers personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein. If the possessor of the real estate appropriates the chattels to his own use in obvious defiance of the owners rights, he is liable to the owner for conversion of them. Every failure to deliver, however, is not such a serious interference with the owners dominion that the defendant should be required to pay the full value of the goods. Analysis: Furniture was not used by either D or Chapman but Chapmans act of placing the furniture in storage amounted to an intermeddling. P was entitled to actual damages in the amount sufficient to compensate him for any impairment of the property or loss of its use. Conclusion: Judgment was reversed with directions to the trial court to re-determine the amount of damages.