Question

A man knew that his brother's most prized possession was his favorite hunting rifle. The man, who was very competitive with his brother, believed he would achieve more hunting success with a rifle as nice as his brother's. One day when the brother was at work, the man went to the brother's house and borrowed the rifle. The man took it hunting, fired one shot, and shot an eight-point buck. He returned the rifle to the brother's house before the brother returned home from work. Later that night, the man told his brother that he had proved his theory about the rifle, and explained what he had done. The brother was furious, and sued the man for trespass to chattels. At trial, the brother testified that he was upset about the man's use of his rifle. He did not provide other evidence of damages.

Is the brother likely to prevail on his claim?
A. No, because the brother cannot show that the man's interference caused him damages.
B. No, because the man returned the rifle to the brother.
C. Yes, because the man used or intermeddled with the brother's chattel.
D. Yes, because the brother need not prove actual damages.

Answer 1

Answer: the correct answer is likely A: No, because the brother cannot show that the man's interference caused him damages.

Explanation: It is possible that the brother may be able to prevail on his claim for trespass to chattels. Trespass to chattels is a type of intentional interference with the personal property of another. To succeed on this claim, the brother would need to show that the man intentionally intermeddled with the rifle, which it appears he did by borrowing it and taking it hunting. The fact that the man returned the rifle does not necessarily mean that the brother cannot prevail on this claim, as the harm caused by the interference can occur even if the chattel is returned.

However, the brother would also need to show that he suffered damages as a result of the man's interference with the rifle. In this case, the brother testified that he was upset about the man's use of his rifle, but he did not provide any other evidence of damages. Without evidence of actual damages, it is less likely that the brother will be able to prevail on his claim. Based on the information provided, the correct answer is likely A: No, because the brother cannot show that the man's interference caused him damages.