Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:31

From: Michael Jones

Subject: Remedies for Conversion and Trespass to Goods

Seems to me that treatment of the causation issue by the judge is confused.

Of course, if it were not for the foreseeable risk of theft in general there would be no need to incur the security costs, but this does not demonstrate that the security costs were caused by the specific theft. If the security already in place had been effective as a deterrent and your client had decided against taking the item, the store would still have incurred the costs. There is no "but for" link between the tort and the costs.

If, on the other hand, the theft prompted the store to install security for the future, there might be a causation argument - but then how much would be recoverable? Defendant takes item worth 50 cents. Store claims $40,000 for equipment and salaries?

This looks more like a claimant seeking punitive damages.

Michael

--------------------------------------
Michael A. Jones
Professor of Common Law
Liverpool Law School
University of Liverpool
Liverpool
L69 3BX

Phone: (0)151 794 2821
Fax: (0)151 794 2829
--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Allan  
Sent: Mon 10/03/2008 04:37
Subject: Remedies For Conversion & Trespass to Goods

Hello all

I've been thrown a slight curve ball as a consequence of my involvement in the local student run law centre. We have a student who has been sued for trespass to goods and conversion as the result of taking an air-freshener from a convenience store. It’s a fair cop in terms of the value of the goods involved, but the plaintiff added a nasty consequential damages claim. They've invested in a security system, which involves a monitoring cost, and have claimed a part recovery of those costs as a form of consequential damages.

My application of first principles arrives at the conclusion that such a head of damage could not be recovered, as (a) the security system was in place prior to the activities of this individual student and (b) monitoring costs do not flow from his act of conversion (in much the same way as keeping the lights on, while helpful in detection) do not flow from his activities.

The Judge's handling of causation is simply that "but for the defendant and others wrongfully taking the goods, the plaintiff would not have to incur such expenditure" and that the "ongoing expenditure in the detection and prevention of theft from its store is either a foreseeable consequence of the theft or arises directly from such acts".

The whole notion seems more than a little backward, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on cogent authority. Any thoughts?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>