Glidden
v. Szybiak
Supreme
Court of
95
N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233.
Prosser,
p. 72-73
Facts: A little girl, Elaine
Glidden, played with a dog and pulled its ears.
The dog snapped at her nose and she was injured. She sued for personal injury and won. The defendants argued that the girl was
committing trespass to chattels at the time of the injury, and thus Elaine was
barred from recovering damages for her injury.
Issue:
Could
Elaine Glidden be held liable for trespass to chattels against the defendants’
dog?
Rule: Someone cannot be held
liable for trespass to chattels unless some harm comes to the chattel.
Analysis: The court finds no evidence
in the record to show that Elaine injured the dog. Therefore, the court concludes Elaine did not
commit a tort at the time of her injury.
Conclusion: The court upheld the
verdict against the defendants.
Notes
and Questions
1. The
2. I thought I
had previously only heard the word “chattels” used in reference to animals
rather than other property.
3. This is an
intentional tort, it makes sense it should be limited to intentional
interferences with chattels.
4. Mistake does
not negate intent! Again!
5. There must be
actual damages, which are construed to include taking stuff away if you put it
back later. If somebody put a Texas Beef
Council sticker on Oprah’s car, they might be held liable for trespass to
chattels, but Oprah could only collect damages if she incurred costs in
removing the bumper sticker, such as having to repaint or remove glue from her
bumper.
6. I don’t
understand the deal with trespass to land in terms of its involvement with
title challenges. I don’t get the
connection. Maybe I will after I take
Property.
7. When a piece
of property gets converted, you get damages, but you don’t get the thing
back. If you want to keep the chattel,
you must go for an action of trespass to chattels.