👀
Torts • Defenses to Intentional Torts
TORT#018
Legal Definition
An actor may use force to recapture a chattel only when tortiously dispossessed and in hot pursuit, after having first made a demand for the chattel's return (unless doing so would be futile or dangerous). Recapture may only be made from the original tortfeasor, or one who is aware of the chattel's status (not from an innocent party).
Entry onto the land of a wrongdoer or innocent party is permissible, however, one is liable for actual damages caused to the land.
No mistake is allowed.
Entry onto the land of a wrongdoer or innocent party is permissible, however, one is liable for actual damages caused to the land.
No mistake is allowed.
Plain English Explanation
Sometimes it's okay to commit an intentional tort if you have a valid defense. Whenever you see someone commit an intentional tort, you should look to see if they may have a valid defense. Recapture of a chattel is a valid defense.
Recapture of chattel is similar to defense of property, except it only applies to items of property that have been taking away from their owner's possession. In other words, where defense of property is applicable when someone is attempting to harm or take your property, recapture of chattel applies after the property has been taken and is now wrongfully in the possession of someone else. Rather than force you to sit back and watch someone run off with your property, the law allows you (or someone who is aware that your property was stolen and who currently has it) to physically take back the property using force (not lethal or excessive/extreme).
Recapture of chattel is similar to defense of property, except it only applies to items of property that have been taking away from their owner's possession. In other words, where defense of property is applicable when someone is attempting to harm or take your property, recapture of chattel applies after the property has been taken and is now wrongfully in the possession of someone else. Rather than force you to sit back and watch someone run off with your property, the law allows you (or someone who is aware that your property was stolen and who currently has it) to physically take back the property using force (not lethal or excessive/extreme).
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob pushes Sam off his bicycle and rides it down the street to his fenced backyard. Sam chases after Bob, following him to his backyard where he demands his bike back, enters, and rips his bike back from Bob's grasp. Bob sues for battery and trespassing. Result: Sam has a valid defense for recapture of chattel, because Bob had wrongfully taken his bike, and Sam was in hot pursuit of Bob to recover it. He was allowed to enter Bob's backyard in order to physically retrieve his bike under these facts. In fact, if Sam's friend Amy had seen it happen, she would also be justified in recovering the bike for Sam.
Related Concepts
In assessing a tort against property, what is a private necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is a public necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is necessity?
What is consent and its limitations?
What is the shopkeeper's privilege?
When is consent implied?
When is consent implied by law?
When is defense of others proper?
When is defense of property proper?
When is express consent not valid?
When is self-defense proper?
