trespass to goods

Trespass to goods is a wrongful physical interference with them.

Action of damages for trespass to the person, or trespass to goods.

The deceased owner's executor successfully sued her for trespass to goods.

Trespass to goods is defined as "wrongful physical interference with goods that are in the possession of another".

Assuming that some damage has been caused, is negligence necessary for liability for unintentional trespass to goods?

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods and trespass to land.

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property .

The most obvious forms of interference, such as removing or damaging the goods, were covered in early law by trespass de bonis asportatis, the forerunner of the modern 'trespass to goods.'

A more extreme view, but one not without its attractions, is that in the modern law trespass to goods is confined to intentional interference and that negligent interference is remediable only by the tort of negligence.

It is covered not only by the common law, but also by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which was written to clear up the confusing rules on trespass to goods which had evolved over the centuries.

It is unknown what mental element is expected in cases of trespass to goods; while trespass to the person requires intent, the requirements for trespass to goods have never been tested in court.

It is unknown whether intention is required for a claim under trespass to goods, as the matter has never gone to court; the courts have confirmed that for damages to be awarded for harm suffered, the harm must have been reasonably foreseeable.

There was some authority for this but the matter is now governed by section 11(1) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which firmly states that contributory negligence is no defence in proceedings founded on conversion, or on intentional trespass to goods.

It would be a trespass to goods and it would be usurping the owner's rights, for only he would have any right to do such an act and no one could contend that there was any implied consent or authority to a customer to do any such thing.

However, since the decision in Fowler v. Lanning, which held that in an action for unintentional trespass to the person the plaintiff must prove negligence on the part of the defendant the same may be true of cases of trespass to goods, though the matter cannot be regarded as finally settled.

In summary, the decision established that applying a wheel clamp to a vehicle constitutes a trespass to goods and that the onus remains with the clamper to demonstrate that the person parking the vehicle knew of the risks and happily took these on at the time that he parked the vehicle.