Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
7. If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant based on conversion, the plaintiff should recover a judgment for
A defendant, an inexperienced driver, borrowed a car from the plaintiff, a casual acquaintance, for the express purpose of driving it several blocks to the local drug store. Instead, the defendant drove the car, which then was worth $12,000, 100 miles to another city. While the defendant was driving in the other city the next day, the car was hit by a negligently driven truck and sustained damage that will cost $3,000 to repair. If repaired, the car will be fully restored to its former condition.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
To establish a prima facie case for conversion, the following elements must be proved: (i) an act by the defendant interfering with the plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel; (ii) intent to perform the act to bring about the interference with the plaintiff's right of possession; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages, meaning an interference that is serious enough in nature or consequences to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel.
Conversion includes, for example, wrongful acquisition (e.g., theft, embezzlement), wrongful transfer (e.g., selling, misdelivering, pledging), wrongful detention (e.g., refusing to return to owner), substantially changing, severely damaging or destroying, and misusing the chattel.
A is correct. If the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is liable for conversion, the plaintiff should recover the full value of the car at $12,000. Conversion occurs when a defendant intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interferes with the plaintiff's chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff use of the chattel. The damages are the full value at the time of the conversion. In this case, when the defendant intentionally drove the car beyond the local drug store to the other city, he interfered with the plaintiff's possessory interest by using the car beyond the scope of the plaintiff's permission. When the defendant kept the car overnight and continued to drive it the next day in the other city, the conduct constituted such a substantial possessory interference that the plaintiff had a claim for conversion as a result. The conversion occurred even if the defendant did not intend to get into an accident and was not negligent while driving the car. The plaintiff may, therefore, recover the fair market value of the car, which was $12,000 before it was damaged.
B is incorrect. Damages in the amount of $3,000 (the amount of damages incurred in the accident to the car while it was in the defendant's possession) would be insufficient for remedying the conversion of the plaintiff's car by the defendant. As stated above, damages for conversion include the full market value of the chattel at the time of the conversion. Here, the value of the car was $12,000, which is what the plaintiff is entitled to here.
C is incorrect. The defendant's actions amount to a claim of conversion, and the appropriate damages are the fair market value of the car at the time of the conversion, which is the full $12,000, not merely the repairs plus the loss of use value.
D is incorrect. Whether the defendant was negligent is not the issue, the issue is whether the defendant intentionally acted in a way that amounted to a conversion of the plaintiff's car. If the defendant had been negligent, his intentional use of the car still makes him liable. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to the full fair market value of the car, as explained above.