The Laptop Incident

Question:

During a group study session at a library, Kevin asks to borrow Sarah’s laptop charger, and she agrees. While she is away, Kevin decides to also use her laptop without permission, reasoning he only needs it for a few minutes. However, while using the laptop, he accidentally spills coffee on the keyboard, causing it to malfunction. Sarah discovers the damage and confronts Kevin, who apologizes but refuses to pay for repairs, claiming he had only borrowed the laptop briefly. Can Sarah bring a successful claim for trespass to chattels against Kevin?

Baseline Response

Issue: The issue is whether Kevin’s unauthorized use of Sarah’s laptop and the resulting damage constitutes a trespass to chattels.

Rule: Trespass to chattels occurs when someone intentionally interferes with another person’s personal property without permission, resulting in damage or depriving the owner of the property’s use temporarily. Unlike conversion, which involves complete deprivation or significant control over the property, trespass to chattels requires only a lesser interference, and the owner typically retains some level of possession or control. However, actual damage to the property is generally required for a trespass to chattels claim to succeed.

Application: In this case, Kevin’s use of Sarah’s laptop was unauthorized, as he only had permission to use her charger, not the laptop itself. By deciding to use the laptop without asking, Kevin interfered with Sarah’s right to exclusive control over her property. His interference resulted in actual damage when he accidentally spilled coffee on the keyboard, causing it to malfunction. Although Kevin may have only intended a brief use, the resulting damage and impairment of the laptop’s function fulfill the requirements for trespass to chattels.

Counterarguments: Kevin might argue that his use was minor and brief, lacking the level of interference required for trespass to chattels. He could contend that his intention was not to damage the laptop, and that any harm was unintentional. However, intent to damage is not necessary in trespass to chattels; it is enough that Kevin acted without permission and caused harm. Additionally, even temporary impairment of the laptop’s functionality can support a trespass to chattels claim when actual damage is present.

Conclusion: Sarah is likely to succeed in her claim for trespass to chattels against Kevin. His unauthorized use of her laptop and the resulting damage to the keyboard satisfy the elements of this tort. Therefore, Kevin’s actions likely make him liable for trespass to chattels.