Trespass to Chattels in Florida
An analysis of the intentional tort protecting the right to undisturbed possession of personal property.
Elements of Trespass to Chattels
Trespass to chattels is an intentional tort that provides a remedy for the unauthorized interference with someone's personal property (a "chattel"). Unlike trespass to land, this tort is concerned with movable property, such as vehicles, equipment, animals, and other personal belongings. To succeed, a plaintiff must prove four elements.
1. Plaintiff's Possessory Interest
The plaintiff must prove they had a legal right to possess the chattel at the time of the interference. This right can belong to the owner or someone with lawful possession, such as a person leasing equipment.
2. Intentional Interference by Defendant
The defendant must have intentionally performed the physical act that interfered with the property. The plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant intended to cause harm or knew the property belonged to someone else. A good-faith mistake of ownership is not a defense.
3. Lack of Consent
The interference must have been unauthorized, meaning it occurred without the plaintiff's consent or other legal justification (privilege).
4. Causation and Actual Harm
The defendant's interference must cause a legally recognized harm. This is a key distinction from trespass to land.
- For a mere intermeddling (using or interfering without taking), the plaintiff must prove actual harm, such as the property being damaged, the owner being deprived of its use for a substantial time, or bodily harm resulting from the interference.
- For a dispossession (taking the chattel from the plaintiff's control), the law presumes harm. The plaintiff can succeed and recover at least nominal damages even if the property is returned immediately and unharmed.
Trespass to Chattels vs. Conversion
Trespass to chattels and conversion are related torts that exist on a spectrum of interference. The difference is a matter of degree and determines the available remedy.
- Trespass to Chattels involves a minor or temporary interference. The remedy is the cost of repair or the value of the loss of use. The plaintiff retains ownership of the property.
- Conversion involves a substantial or permanent interference that is so serious the law treats it as a forced sale. The remedy is the full fair market value of the property at the time of the conversion. The defendant effectively buys the property.
Example: Taking a friend's car for a joyride and returning it with a scratch is a trespass to chattels. Stealing the same car and selling it or totaling it in a crash is conversion.
Damages and Remedies
A successful plaintiff can recover damages to compensate for the interference with their property.
Compensatory Damages
The standard remedy is the lesser of the reasonable cost to repair the property or the diminution in its fair market value. Damages for the loss of use (measured by fair rental value) during the period of deprivation are also recoverable.
Punitive Damages
In cases of malicious or grossly negligent conduct, a plaintiff may seek punitive damages. Under Fla. Stat. § 768.72, this requires a high standard of proof ("clear and convincing evidence") and is subject to statutory caps.
Civil Theft Statute
If the trespass amounts to criminal theft, a plaintiff can pursue a claim under Florida's Civil Theft Statute (§ 772.11), which allows for the recovery of treble (triple) damages and attorney's fees. This requires proving felonious intent by clear and convincing evidence.
Defenses to Trespass to Chattels
A defendant can avoid liability by proving their interference was legally justified.
Consent
If the plaintiff gave permission for the use of the property, no trespass occurred. The defendant's actions must remain within the scope of the consent given.
Necessity
Interfering with another's property to prevent a greater harm may be excused. Public necessity (averting a public disaster) is a complete defense. Private necessity (protecting oneself or one's property) is a limited defense; the actor is excused from the trespass but is still liable for any actual damage caused.
Privilege
Certain individuals, like law enforcement officers acting under a warrant, are privileged by law to interfere with personal property without it constituting a trespass.