LAW OF TORTS II ROADMAP - Trespass to goods

LAW OF TORTS II ROADMAP - Trespass to goods - LAW OF TORTS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LAW OF TORTS II ROADMAP – Interference to Goods What type of possession does the D have over the P’s good? Actual or constructive possession or Sub bailment or Implied bailment or Hire or Non-consensual possession or Possessory title Fixed-term bailment Revocable bailment Trespass to goods: Title to sue: Who had the chattel at the time of the trespass? If the P, therefore proceed (state that prima facie is required for a cause of action under trespass to goods). If the D, not a case for trespass. Was the trespass by the D a direct voluntary act towards the P? If yes, proceed If not, this is not a trespass to goods case. Was the trespass by the D done negligently or directly (intentionally)? If yes, proceed If not, this is not a trespass to goods case. Was the P’s chattel interfered with while the P was in actual (or constructive) possession of the good? If yes, title to sue established If not, Consider any one of the exceptions Exceptions: Does the P have an immediate right to possession & does the P have a bailment at will towards the goods interfered with, thus having immediate possession in relation to a third-party?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
If yes, the P is still able to sue for trespass to goods. If no, there P is not able to sue the D for trespass to goods o If the D had immediate possession over the goods at the time of the interference, mention Penfolds if similar. Nature of interference (As mentioned in Penfolds ): Was the handling of a chattel by the D done without authority or unauthorised by the P? If yes, proceed If no, no interference with the goods Was there a direct act that sets off an unbroken chain of inevitable events? If yes, mention that this is still considered as a direct act, as mentioned in Scott v Shepperd . If no, proceed and don’t mention this issue. Does the D have wrongful possession over the P’s chattel? If yes, mention that wrongful possession is actual possession, but the P is still able to have a cause of action UNLESS the D is the true owner of the chattel. If no, proceed and don’t mention this issue. Was the D’s trespass a direct act? If yes, there proceed If no, therefore mention that a consequential act is not enough to prove direct interference with the goods. Therefore, no trespass to goods as the nature of interference is consequential. o If a case of sleep walking, mention Beals v Haywards . Fault of the defendant: Was there intent or negligence on behalf of the D’s act? If yes, proceed If no, mention that under National Coal Board v Evans , it was established that fault or negligence is required for a cause of action under trespass to goods. o
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

LAW OF TORTS II ROADMAP - Trespass to goods - LAW OF TORTS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online