Trespass from implied privilege of necessity1.D can stay, but is liable for any injury to P's property (Vincent—boat on dock during storm)a.GOLDBERG-IPN is garbage. If you intend to touch land, you touch it, and it turns out to belong to someone else you have committed trespass. If the trespass caused damage you are liable. i.BUT maybe IPN is important when the property owner tries to refuse access to trespasser who needs to trespass to be safe. Ploof(unhooks boat in middle of storm) E. Defenses1.Consent—built into the prima facie case a.Express—must be given knowingly and voluntarily, doesn't work if obtained by fraudb.Implied—reasonable mistake about ownership is not a defense c.Scope of consent—if invitee or licensee moves beyond scope of invitation (geographical, temporal or purpose of visit) becomes a trespasser (Copeland, videotaping w/out permission in home) 2.This is a new area where people are finding liability for things like hacking, only receive damages for trespass though, not for dissemination of information II.Trespass to ChattelA.Somebody intentionally touches stuff, need damage to chattel to bring claim for trespass III.ConversionA.Tort for theft, also can be conversion if you reasonably think the object is yours as long as you intended to take it. Today some claims for hacking (trespass to chattel) and seizing files
(conversion)IV. NuisanceA.Instead of a boundary crossing, it's an interference with the right to use the property B.Needs to render property unusable and be continuous interference with P's use and enjoyment of the property 1.Sturges—noise from machines makes Dr.'s waiting room unusable, even though D was making noise before P moved in P never waived right. 2.Coase Theorem very applicable here-no wrongdoer-Steps of Coasean analysisa.Which use of the land is more profitable? Goal is to make the pie as big as possible.b.BUT, it doesn’t matter who get assigned the property right. Property will be put to the highest value use regardless. i.Even if Confectioner wins, Doc will pay him 150>x>100 to use property for doctoring. ii.BUT, this only works if transaction costs are low/0, i.e., rational parties, free info. c.SO, Judge should focus on what decision will allow the lowest cost bargaining to go on. Try to minimize transaction costs. i.Trying to do this is more likely to lead to highest use that trying to decipher what the“best” use is. 3.Nuisance must be to the point that property is unusable (can't be occasional)4.Reasonableness standard used, not about D's conduct but about P's use and enjoyment C.Damages options1.Court will look at who should be the risk/hardship2.Compensation3.Injunction for continued nuisance (Penland)a.Justified because could move composting elsewhereb.Also justified b/c utility able to spread costs to clients so better able to bear risk 4.Injunction unless compensate neighbors for damages (Boomer) a.Court worried about larger public policy issues closing plantb.Won't grant injunctions where there will be irreparable harmAbnormally Dangerous Activities—Question of whether they apply in tort lawI.