Q4:
Neighbor v. Woody
Vicarious Liability - Respondeat Superior
The Respondeat Superior doctrine applies in employment situations to hold the employer vicariously liable for his employee’s torts which are committed within the scope of employment.
Here, Woody hired Chuck, an independent licensed contractor, to do the septic installation. Woody will be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by Chuck, which are committed within the scope of the employment.
Trespass to Land
Trespass to land is an intentional entry upon real property in the possession of another.
Here, Woody hired Chuck, an independent contractor, to install a septic system and to remove a maple tree to make room for the septic system, all of which Woody was aware required coming into the Neighbor’s property. Woody may argue that the property was vacant and not being used; however, his argument will fail because the property belonged to Neighbor and, thus, was in Neighbor’s possession. Further, Woody was very much aware of where the division of the property line was because he otherwise would not have contemplated having to go under Neighbor’s land to install the septic tank.
That Woody intended for the septic work and tree removal to be done while Neighbor was overseas for a year, demonstrates that Woody desired the work to be completed without Neighbor’s knowledge, thus without privilege or consent.
On the other hand, Woody will argue that he did not personally trespass upon Neighbor’s land, that it was Chuck. However, this argument will fail if it is shown that Woody instructed Chuck to go onto Neighbor’s land, which is the use of an innocent agent to carry out the actions that the primary tortfeasor(Woody) intends to commit. Further, since Chuck acted under demand required by the scope of his employment, liability will vicariously extend to Woody.
Therefore, Woody will be vicariously liable to Neighbor for trespass to land.
Trespass to Chattel
Trespass to chattel is the intentional interference with a person’s use or possession of a chattel.
Here, Woody intended for the maple tree upon Neighbor’s property to be removed to make room for the septic tank. Woody instructed Chuck to cut down the maple tree, which Chuck eventually did creating an intentional interference with the personal property of Neighbor.
Woody may argue that Chuck had inferred that the tree would need to be removed to make room for the septic tank, however, Chuck will argue that he was not sure of where the property lines were drawn and that Woody ultimately demanded him to remove the tree. Moreover, Woody was well aware of where the property line was located, discussed, supra.
Woody will be vicariously liable to Neighbor for trespass to chattel of the maple tree.
Conversion
Conversion is an intentional assumption of dominion and control over the chattel of another, resulting in a substantial interference with the plaintiff's possessory rights.
Woody later burned the wood from the felled maple tree which belonged to Neighbor as it was his personal property. Woody burned the wood because he liked the ambiance burning wood created and thus it was his internet and desire that the wood be burned which was Woody’s assumption of dominion and control over the maple tree that belonged to Neighbor, and resulting in the permanent dispossession of the tree from Neighbor.
Therefore, Woody will be liable for the conversion of the maple tree.
Neighbor v. Chuck
Trespass to Land
Defined, supra.
Chuck was required to go onto the land of Neighbor to perform the septic work. Chuck’s coming on to Neighbor’s land was volitional, thus it was intentional.
Chuck will argue that he did not know exactly where Neighbor’s property line started and so can not be held to intending his act occur on Neighbor’s land. However, Neighbor will argue that Chuck need not know whether the land upon which he stood belonged to another. It is sufficient that Chuck intended to place himself upon the portion of property regardless of in whose possession the property was.
Further, Neighbr will argue that Chuck at least suspected where the property lines fell, and that will impute his knowledge, even though knowledge is not required.
Therefore, Chuck will be liable for trespass to land.
Trespass to Chattel
Defined, supra.
Chuck removed the maple tree by the instructions of Woody. Chuck will argue that he did not know that the land upon which the maple tree was located belonged to Neighbor.
Neighbor will argue that it was sufficient for Chuck to at least suspect that the property line did indicate where Neighbor’s land began, and thus was sufficient to impute knowledge and thereby Chuck’s intent to remove the maple tree of Neighbor and which substantially interfered with Neighbor’s rights to his tree.
However, Chuck will counter that although he may have suspected, it was not known and the threshold for trespass to chattel is that he knew the maple tree is the chattel of another.
Therefore, Chuck will not be liable for Trespass to Chattel.
DAMAGES
General Damages
General damages are non-pecuniary in nature and are presumed by the law to be incurred based upon the commission of the tort.
Since the acts occurred while Neighbor was away, he will recover damages for that which caused him pain and suffering.
Neighbor will recover general damages.
Special Damages
Special damages are pecuniary in nature and related to specific costs incurred due to the particular circumstances involved in the tort.
Neighbor can recover the replacement value of what a maple tree cost at the time the maple tree was removed.
Neighbor can recover the cost of having the septic tank removed and putting the land back to its original situation.
Neighbor will be awarded special damages.
Equitable Relief
Equitable relief will be awarded where the legal remedy is insufficient, and where there appears to be a continuing tort. Equitable relief will be awarded to prevent the multiplicity of suits for the same tort.
In the event that the septic tank can not be removed, the court may grant equitable relief and order that Woody pay for the reasonable daily rental value for using the portion of Neighbor’s land under which his septic tank is located.
Since it would not be likely that the septic tank be removed, indeed because then Woody would be responsible for a private nuisance for the offensive odor coming from his outhouse, Neighbor would have ability to bring multiple suits for continuing trespass of the septic tank.
However, it would depend on the cost/benefit analysis and which would be more fair to both parties overall. If it is reasonable to pay a daily rate versus the cost of removing the septic tank and having another on einstalled that would not trespass onto Neighbor’s land.
Nieghbor may seek equitable relief.
Joint and several Liability
Joint and several liability is imposed upon joint and concurrent (but not successive) tortfeasors. This means that each is responsible for the full amount of the plaintiff's injury and the full amount of a related court judgment. Judgments for the full amount may be obtained against any of the tortfeasors, but the plaintiff is not entitled to recover more than the total judgment. Thus, satisfaction from one tortfeasor will discharge the liability of the others to the plaintiff.
Here, Woody will be held jointly and severally liable for the torts of Chuck, which are trespass to land, and trespass to chattel. Plaintiff can collect against Woody for all of the damages, or from Chuck.
Indemnification
A party may seek indemnification from another if it can be proved that one party was not responsible for the actual tort committed by the other tortfeasor.
Here, Woody will seek indemnification from Chuck for trespass to land and trespass to chattel because although Woody did intend for those torts to occur, he did not actually commit them, and therefore should not bear the majority of the damages.
However, Chuck will argue that he should be indemnified for the damages to Neighbor because Woody ordered Chuck to commit all fo the torts against neighbor. Indeed, Woody was aware of the property lines and the instructions he gave to Chuck were made wth such knowledge. Further, Chuck did not act outside the scope of Woody’s demands, nor did he act independently from Woody’s instructions.
Ultimately, Woody will be found completely liable for Chuck’s torts.
Comments
Post a Comment