Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)  (Read 2118 times)

Georgetown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« on: October 21, 2007, 06:48:20 PM »
I'm having a difficult time understand conversion and what went on in the Wallace v. Rosen case.

CStoJD2010

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2007, 10:54:37 PM »
Conversion just means, hey, you've got my stuff, give it back.

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2007, 11:29:41 PM »
I'm having a difficult time understand conversion and what went on in the Wallace v. Rosen case.

look the case up on lexis and it gives a mini brief on top. If I still had my password accessible, id look it up for ya, but I dont :(

LVP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2007, 11:17:13 PM »
First of all, I'm hoping you understand that Wallace v. Rosen didn't involve conversion.

Second, conversion is like the "big brother" to trespass to chattels.  Basically, conversion is an unlawful act, usually a taking or destroying, done to the chattel of another, that is serious enough that the owner has basically been deprived of his property, and it is fair to force the tortfeasor to pay for the entire value of the property.

Third, Wallace v. Rosen is the "crowded world" case.  Like any case, there are a million different points you can get out of it (well, 21 according to WestLaw), but I'm guessing you are reading it for its application to the law of battery.  The Plaintiff fell and/or was pushed down the stairs.  Defendant touched her to alert her to the fact that she was blocking a stairwell during a fire drill.  This looks to any alert 1L like a clear case of battery - after all, there was an intentional touching, and P didn't want D to touch her.  The court says:
Quote
Professors Prosser and Keeton also made the following observations about the intentional tort of battery and the character of the defendant's action:

Quote
n a crowded world, a certain amount of personal contact is inevitable and must be accepted. Absent expression to the contrary, consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life, such as a tap on the shoulder to attract attention, a friendly grasp of the arm, or a casual jostling to make a passage....

The time and place, and the circumstances under which the act is done, will necessarily affect its unpermitted character, and so will the relations between the parties. A stranger is not to be expected to tolerate liberties which would be allowed by an intimate friend. But unless the defendant has special reason to believe that more or less will be permitted by the individual plaintiff, the test is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity.
* * *
The conditions on the stairway of Northwest High School during the fire drill were an example of Professors Prosser and Keeton's “crowded world.” Individuals standing in the middle of a stairway during the fire drill could expect that a certain amount of personal contact would be inevitable. Rosen had a responsibility to her students to keep them moving in an orderly fashion down the stairs and out the door. Under these circumstances, Rosen's touching of Wallace's shoulder or back with her fingertips to get her attention over the noise of the alarm cannot be said to be a rude, insolent, or angry touching. Wallace has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the battery instruction.

Basically, the court finds a presumption of consent to certain reasonable touchings in this crowded world, and it is the consent that makes this touching no battery at all.
Pizza is the reward, death is the risk.

#

Georgetown

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2007, 12:53:20 PM »
Thank you. :)

First of all, I'm hoping you understand that Wallace v. Rosen didn't involve conversion.

Second, conversion is like the "big brother" to trespass to chattels.  Basically, conversion is an unlawful act, usually a taking or destroying, done to the chattel of another, that is serious enough that the owner has basically been deprived of his property, and it is fair to force the tortfeasor to pay for the entire value of the property.

Third, Wallace v. Rosen is the "crowded world" case.  Like any case, there are a million different points you can get out of it (well, 21 according to WestLaw), but I'm guessing you are reading it for its application to the law of battery.  The Plaintiff fell and/or was pushed down the stairs.  Defendant touched her to alert her to the fact that she was blocking a stairwell during a fire drill.  This looks to any alert 1L like a clear case of battery - after all, there was an intentional touching, and P didn't want D to touch her.  The court says:
Quote
Professors Prosser and Keeton also made the following observations about the intentional tort of battery and the character of the defendant's action:

Quote
n a crowded world, a certain amount of personal contact is inevitable and must be accepted. Absent expression to the contrary, consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life, such as a tap on the shoulder to attract attention, a friendly grasp of the arm, or a casual jostling to make a passage....

The time and place, and the circumstances under which the act is done, will necessarily affect its unpermitted character, and so will the relations between the parties. A stranger is not to be expected to tolerate liberties which would be allowed by an intimate friend. But unless the defendant has special reason to believe that more or less will be permitted by the individual plaintiff, the test is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity.
* * *
The conditions on the stairway of Northwest High School during the fire drill were an example of Professors Prosser and Keeton's “crowded world.” Individuals standing in the middle of a stairway during the fire drill could expect that a certain amount of personal contact would be inevitable. Rosen had a responsibility to her students to keep them moving in an orderly fashion down the stairs and out the door. Under these circumstances, Rosen's touching of Wallace's shoulder or back with her fingertips to get her attention over the noise of the alarm cannot be said to be a rude, insolent, or angry touching. Wallace has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the battery instruction.

Basically, the court finds a presumption of consent to certain reasonable touchings in this crowded world, and it is the consent that makes this touching no battery at all.

djdvine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - dj_dvine
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Please explain "Conversion" & Wallace v. Rosen? (TORTS)
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2007, 12:18:43 AM »
Conversion:
Big Brother to Trespass to Chattels
Elements:
Intent
Exercise of Domionion
Control over a Chattel.
interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.  No longer restricted to lost property, courts still generally limit protection to tangible property unless the intangible property has distinct scientific literary or artistic value

For a Case, look up: Pearson v. Dodd