Conversion is an intentional interference with the property of another person with the intention to deprive the owner of the property. This includes situations when someone uses the property of another and damages or destroys it. During an act of conversion, taking the property may be lawful, while keeping the property and/or returning the property in a damaged state is unlawful.
Elements of Conversion
According to CACI 2100 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.
Plaintiff owned, possessed or had a right to possess a personal property
Defendant wrongfully took the property or interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to use it;
The defendant acted without the plaintiff’s consent
Plaintiff suffered damages
Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff
The plaintiff generally must establish an actual interference with his ownership or right to possess property to prove the conversion. In addition to actual interference the plaintiff must also show that the interference was substantial, which can prove by showing an intention or purpose to keep the owner from taking possession of the property or to convert the goods and to exercise ownership over them.
The Difference Between a Cause of Action for Conversion and for Trespass
The difference between a cause of action for conversion and for trespass against personal property turns on the degree of the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In the case of conversion, it is essential to prove that the defendant actually and substantially has exercised control over the plaintiff's personal property, interfered with the plaintiff's rights in the property. In contrast, any illegal interference or exercise of control over the personal property of another person can give rise to a cause of action for trespass. After a property has been converted, the injured party can choose to either sue the defendant for the tort, or waive the tort and sue in "assumpsit" either for money had and received or the value of the property converted.
The Broad Meaning of Conversion
Conversion does not necessarily simply mean theft of the property, it is more related to actual interference with the victim’s possession or ownership rights rather than just theft. Examples of conduct which includes in the claim:
Destroying another person’s personal property
Failure to deliver funds or property
Refusing to record the proper ownership after a sale
Changing property in such a way that it can’t be used properly or used at all
Some Types of Personal Property Which Can Be Converted
Motor vehicles
Jewelry
Financial instruments
Cash money
Electronics
Building supplies
Damages the Plaintiff Can Recover After a Successful Lawsuit
Value of the property at the time of the conversion, with interest from that time.
Evidence of the cost of the property, along with other circumstances such as the condition of the property ant the extent of its use can be considered essential in determining the value of the property at the time of the conversion.
An amount sufficient to indemnify the victim for the reasonable, natural, and proximate results of the illegal act complained of and which a proper degree of prudence on the plaintiff's part wouldn’t be averted.
Fair compensation for money and time spent in pursuit of the property.
Contact Us
For any further legal assistance, KAASS LAW is here to help!
According to California Government Code Section 830(a) a dangerous condition of property is a condition which creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a way in which it is foreseeable that it will be used. In California, property managers and owners are obliged to establish engineering standards when designing buildings and roadways and buildings. They should also conduct regular inspections for assuring that the property is not dangerous and maintain the property in a safe and secure manner. When the manager or owner fails to fulfill his legal obligations and someone is injured, he is responsible for the caused injuries and financial damages.
Elements the Plaintiff Must Establish to Prove the Dangerous Condition of Property
According to CACI Instructions 1100 and California Government Code Section 835 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim.
Defendant owned or controlled the property
The property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident
The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that took place
A public employee within the scope of his employment wrongfully or negligently or wrongly committed an act or omission that created a dangerous condition
According to California Penal Code Section 350 it is prohibited to willfully manufacture, intentionally sell, or knowingly possess for sale any counterfeit mark registered with the Secretary of State or registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Elements of California Penal Code 350
The prosecutor must be able to establish the following element to convict the defendant of manufacturing, sale, or possession for sale of counterfeit goods under PC Section 350:
Defendant was in possession of counterfeit goods;
While defendant was in possession, he had the intention to sell the counterfeit goods, or he had actually sold counterfeit goods, or manufactured counterfeit goods
The counterfeit good contained a seal registered with the Secretary of State or the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Legal Defenses to California Penal Code Section 350 Charges
Defendant didn’t know that he was in possession of counterfeit goods
Defendant didn’t know the goods were actually counterfeit but authentic
Unreasonable force refers to situations when government officials legally entitled to use force exceed the necessary minimum amount to diffuse an incident or to defend others or themselves from harm.
Elements of Unreasonable Force
According to CACI 440 the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish this claim:
Defendant used force in arresting or detaining the plaintiff
The amount of force used by the defendant was unreasonable
Plaintiff was harmed
Defendant’s use of unreasonable force was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff
Governmental Immunity Granted to the Police Officer
Under the legal doctrine of governmental immunity, a police officer's actions are protected from liability while being on the job. This is a rule that the police officer generally can’t be sued for reasonable actions taken while performing his official duties. So, the right to make an investigatory stop or arrest necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical force, but the degree of the force must be proportional to the threat and be applicable only in response to the threat.
Over the years, drivers under Uber, Lyft, and many others have not been successful with these apps. California legislature approved Assembly Bill 5, back in the year 2019, requiring app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, and Doordash treat workers as employees. It's aim is to make it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. This bill on a 2018 California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, establishes the "ABC test" for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. Workers must be an employees instead of contractors if a company retains control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a company’s regular business. California will become the first state to require app-based companies/gig-economy to treat workers as employees. Overall, AB 5 marked a pivotal shift in California's approach to worker rights, particularly within the gig economy, and its influence continues to shape debates about labor classification in the state and beyond
Battery is an intentional harmful or offensive touching of another person without his consent. Frequently used in a single phrase and often thought of as one offense, the terms "assault" and "battery" are two separate torts. These two offenses are usually almost alongside, that is, an assault is immediately by a battery. Though, an assault doesn’t include a battery since it is just the apprehension of a contact that if made would establish a battery.
Elements of Battery
According to CACI 1300 the plaintiff must be able to prove all the following elements to establish the claim:
The defendant that touched the plaintiff or cause the plaintiff to be touched with the intent to harm or offend him or her.
The plaintiff did not consent to the touching
The plaintiff was harmed or offended by the defendant’s conduct
A battery is a violation of a person’s interest in freedom from intentional illegal, offensive and harmful unconsented contacts with his person. To successfully establish a claim for battery a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally subjected him to an offensive or harmful touching which actually lead to injuries.
Under personal injury law, assault is defined as a purposeful act by one person which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault is known as an intentional tort when it is made the subject of a civil case.
Elements of Assault
According to CACI 1301 to establish the claim of assault, a plaintiff must prove all the following elements:
The defendant acted with the intention to cause harmful or offensive contact
Plaintiff reasonably believed that he was about to be touched in a harmful or offensive manner or threatened to touch in a harmful or an offensive manner
It reasonably appeared to the plaintiff that the defendant was about to carry out the threat
Plaintiff did not consent to the defendant’s conduct
Plaintiff was harmed
Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff
Assault does not always involve physical contact, at least not when it comes to civil liability. Even fear of offensive or harmful touching is usually enough for an assault to have occurred. In case the touching actually occurs, the physical contact is usually classified as a battery in civil law, though both claims are often made together.
Trespassing is the legal term for when one person enters onto another person’s land without legal right or permission to be there. The trespassing can be considered a crime, a civil wrong, or both depending on a particular case. When a person trespasses onto another person’s land and steals some personal property from the owner he can be charged with criminal trespass. When the trespasser breaks something on the homeowner’s property he can be sued under civil tort law.
Elements of Trespass
To establish this claim, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements
The plaintiff owned, leased, occupied, controlled the property
The defendant intentionally, recklessly or negligently entered the plaintiff’s property or defendant intentionally, recklessly or negligently caused another person to enter the plaintiff’s property
The plaintiff didn’t give his permission for the entry or that the defendant exceeded the plaintiff’s permission
The plaintiff was actually harmed
The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff
Intentional interference with economic relations is an unfair business practice in California which includes three types of actions:
Intentional interference with contractual relations
Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
Elements of a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations According to CACI 2201, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
There was a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party;
Defendant knew about the contract
By engaging in this conduct the defendant had the intention to disrupt the relationship or knew that disruption of the relationship was substantially certain to occur
The relationship was disrupted
The plaintiff was harmed as the result of the defendant’s conduct
In California malicious prosecution is a civil cause of action aimed to go after individuals who file frivolous lawsuits and cause damages as a result. Malicious prosecution claims are having a chilling effect on an ordinary citizen’s readiness to bring a dispute to the court, and are often characterized as a “disfavored cause of action.”
Elements of Malicious Prosecution in California:
An injured person must be able to prove all the elements for this claim. Failing to prove any one of the elements of this cause of action will result in a loss at trial.
Legal action prosecuted or commenced without probable cause: If the claim is brought without justification, the case is without probable cause. Generally probable cause is analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis, meaning that every claim brought and prosecuted without probable cause can support a claim for malicious prosecution.
Legal action was initiated with malice or malicious intent
Final resolution of the claim in the defendant’s favor. The defendant in the malicious prosecution action must prevail on the underlying suit – at least with regard to the causes of action for which malicious prosecution is claimed.
Legal Damages: The actions cause economic and non-economic, which can be considered and must be proven at trial.
What Must the Plaintiff Prove?
According to CACI 1501 to prove a claim of malicious prosecution the plaintiff must be able to show the following:
Defendant was actively involved in bringing about the lawsuit
Defendant had notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to have protected against it
Plaintiff was harmed as a result of the dangerous condition of the property
Examples of Dangerous Conditions of Public Property
Lack of street warnings or signs to reduce speed
Extreme drop at the edge of a highway
Stop sign hidden by tree branches
Poorly maintained road that has crumbled away
Broken traffic signal at an intersection
Failure to erect a median barrier on a freeway
Determining Property Ownership
In some cases, it is easy to determine who is the owner of the property. For example, if a person is injured in a dangerous curve in a roadway it is easy to know that it involves a public entity. The victim must determine whether the roadway is the responsibility of the Country, the State or the City. Other cases can involve a piece of business or a land that seems to be private, but is actually operated by a government entity. Sometimes there are no signs letting us know who is the owner of the property. In response to a letter to the entity requesting ownership information a public entity typically confirms the ownership or directs to the potential owner.
The Process of Suing a Government Entity
A claim against the proper government entity must be filed against within six months of the accident
The government entity must respond to the claim in 45 days. In case the responsible entity denies the claim, a lawsuit must be filed within six months of the written denial of the claim.
It is important to know that government entities have a multitude of defenses and immunities for fighting the claims.
Defendant didn’t possess the goods for the purposes of sale but rather for personal use
Defendant wasn’t in legal possession of the goods
The goods didn’t contain a seal registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Penalties for Violating California Penal Code Section 350
Penalties for First Offense
Penalties for manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks under PC Section 350 depend on the value and the number of the counterfeit goods. Manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks is a misdemeanor in case:
The number of counterfeit items is less than 1,000
Total value of counterfeit items worth less than $950
Penalties for a Misdemeanor Conviction Are the Following:
Up to one year in a county jail
Fine of up to $10,000 for individuals, and up to $200,000 for business entities
Misdemeanor probation
Manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks is a wobbler in case:
The number of counterfeit items is more than 1,000
Total value of counterfeit items worth more than $950
Wobbler is a crime that can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the number of factors. Penalties for a felony conviction are the following:
Sixteen months, two years or three years in a county jail
Fine of up to $500,000 for individuals, and up to $1,000,000 for business entities.
Felony probation
The court will additionally order the asset forfeiture of all of the counterfeit items and marks
Penalties for Second and Subsequent Offenses
In case the defendant has a prior conviction for manufacturing or selling counterfeit marks, then the second offense is always a wobbler even if the number of counterfeit goods is less than 1,000 and the value of counterfeit items is less than $950. The penalties are the same as for a wobbler conviction with the exception in the amount of the fine:
A fine of to $100,000 for individuals and $400,000 for business entities
The defendant will face harsher penalties if the manufacture or sale of the counterfeit items caused great bodily injury or death or to another person, who used the items, thinking that it was genuine. In that case, defendant always faces felony conviction with up to two, three or four years in a county jail.
Courts can also grant police officers qualified immunity along with deferring to a law enforcement reasonableness standard. This aims to protect public officials from civil liability for violations of rights as long as they were reasonably performing their duties and the rights weren’t clearly established. In unreasonable force cases, qualified immunity can protect police officers in more unclear situations where there's a border between necessary and unreasonable force. Though, to benefit from this immunity, a public official must be able to show that a reasonable person in his position wouldn't have known that his conduct violated clearly established law.
Examples of Unreasonable Force
Here are some examples of excessive force and police abuse.
Beatings
Improper shootings
Unreasonable use of weapon
Police dogs
Intimidation
Sexual assault
Fabricating evidence
False arrest
Perjury
What Can a Victim Do?
A victim might be able to take his case to the court if he was victimized by law enforcement. Generally, there can be three main causes of action:
Constitutional claims
State criminal claims
Civil tort claims
What Remedies Are Available?
Under Section 1983 of the United States Code, an unreasonable force is a constitutional violation that can be remedied by filing a civil rights complaint for injunctive or monetary relief. A plaintiff can also file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, which can decide to investigate his case. When deciding the issue of whether the government official engaged in excessive force or not, courts consider particular circumstances to determine if the actions were objectively reasonable.
Among the Circumstances to Be Considered Are the Following:
Whether the plaintiff reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the safety of the defendant or others
The seriousness of the underlying crime at issue or circumstances
Whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest or attempting to avoid the arrest by flight
Whether other alternatives were available
Defendant’s tactical conduct and decisions before using force on the plaintiff
Have you been involved in an arrest where you've experienced unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer? Experienced attorneys at KAASS Law are here to help protect your rights. Get in touch with us to go over the details of your case at any time!
Will Uber/Lyft Drivers Be Able to Set Their Own Scheduling?
Accordingly, some experts say that nothing in Assembly Bill 5 will require employees to work set shifts, meaning that Uber and Lyft legally have to allow drivers to make their own scheduling decisions. This California Bill is to better help employees for Uber and Lyft, and other third party companies that offer delivery services for food, groceries, and or client transportation. Also see Uber Insurance Explained
Civil liability means that the attacker can be liable for payment of the damages to the victim in a lawsuit, as opposed to criminal liability when the attacker faces punishment for a crime. In a civil lawsuit, the victim will have the burden of proving that the attacker caused him harm and injuries. The victim has a right to file a lawsuit against the attacker whether or not he has a conviction of a crime of battery and against other parties who may have contributed to the circumstance leading to the battery.
Damages for Injuries and Harm
As mentioned above when harm and injuries were a cause by an intentional act of battery, the victim has a right to sue the attacker for the following measures of damages:
Economic damages: The victim can recover all reasonably associated out-of-pocket losses, such as loss of income, medical bills, and personal property damage.
Non-Economic damages: These damages include recovery for the pain and mental suffering that is relevant from the injuries.
Punitive damages: In contrast with negligence cases, offenses with intentional acts causing harm to trigger the right to recover punitive damages from the attacker. Punitive damages have the aim to punish the violent attacker.
Wrongful death action: The victim's successors can bring a wrongful death action against the violent offender in case the victim has died as a result of damages, caused during the battery.
Are you in need of more individualized information about civil liability for battery in California? Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at KAASS Law are here to take your call.
Difference Between Criminal Assault and Civil Assault in California
Assault can be filed under civil and criminal laws and in both cases the elements to prove are similar. Both require that the defendant’s conduct create a reasonable apprehension of harm to the plaintiff. Though, the difference between criminal assault and civil assault lies mainly in the legal remedies that result from the action. In civil law, it is required that the defendant either meant to cause apprehension or that the defendant should have known that his conduct would cause apprehension to the plaintiff. In contrast, criminal law requires that the defendant had the intention to commit physical injury or battery to the plaintiff. In a civil assault claim, it is a private lawsuit between two persons, where a plaintiff can normally collect monetary damages, but a jail sentence is not usually imposed in civil assault claims. In contrast, with a criminal trial, the involved parties are the state (the prosecution) and the victim. Any damages awards can be limited by state statutes that cover how much a victim can recover in a criminal trial. On the other hand, criminal laws generally impose a jail sentence for the defendant, which can range from a few months to several years depending on the severity of the assault.
Legal Defenses to California Civil Assault Claims
The defendant was acting in self-defense.
In case the defendant was acting in self-defense or defense of another person he can’t be found liable.
Defendant had a privilege:
In some cases, the defendant could have a limited right to commit assault. For instance, when a police officer attempts to place a suspect under arrest.
The plaintiff fails to prove all the necessary elements of the claim:
In a successful claim, the plaintiff must prove all the elements of assault: the apprehension of harm, cause of action and the defendant’s purpose or knowledge of harm to the plaintiff. Damages that can be recovered
Economic damages, including medical bills and lost income.
Non-economic damages including compensation for pain and suffering and other losses which are difficult to quantify
Punitive damages, designed mainly to punish the assailant.
Trespass can be committed intentionally, recklessly or negligently. If a trespasser doesn’t know that the is deeded land, but with inquiry can find out, the trespass is negligent. Trespass requires some form of physical entry or contact with the plaintiff’s land. That entry could be the defendant going onto the plaintiff’s land, throwing or putting an object on it, causing a third person to enter onto the plaintiff’s land or discharging some substance onto the land. Trespass also takes place when a person fails to leave the owner’s property after permission to enter has been first given but then ended or revoked.
Legal Action Against a Trespasser
In case property was damaged by someone who committed a trespass the owner can take civil action. The owner can sue the trespasser even though the property was not damaged. In this case, the amount of compensation will be equal to the price that a reasonable person would pay for the right to pass over the land. The defendant can also ask for an injunction to stop the trespass from happening again.
Examples of Trespass
Here are some examples of trespass in California:
A neighbor enters onto private property to cut vegetation or trees without the owner’s permission. In similar cases, California law is especially strict. There are Civil code sections which allow for the recovery of treble damages for the loss of trees. The trespasser is liable for three times the value of the trees and punitive damages.
A neighbor places a barrier or some other object on another person’s property without permission. An injunction can be obtained in court to force the removal of the barrier in addition to damages.
Types of Damages for Trespass in California
A property owner or tenant has a legal right to get compensation for trespass to his land, and recover the following damages:
The claim of intentional interference with contractual relations requires the existence of an underlying enforceable contract. In case there is no contract or the contract is unenforceable, then the plaintiff will have a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage.
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Elements of a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2202, The plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
The plaintiff and a third party were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to him
Defendant knew about the relationship
Defendant engaged in a wrongful conduct
By engaging in this conduct defendant intended to disrupt the relationship or knew that the disruption was substantially certain to occur
The relationship was disrupted
The plaintiff was harmed as the result of the defendant’s conduct
Though generally, a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage includes the defendant’s interference with a prospective contract, liability can be based on interference with any economic relationship containing a probability of future benefits to the plaintiff, including interference with any lawful trade, business, or occupation. Some common examples of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage include conduct constituting libel fraud, or misappropriation of trade secrets.
Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Elements of a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage According to CACI 2204, the plaintiff must be able to prove the following elements to establish the claim:
The plaintiff and a third party were in an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to him
Defendant knew about the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that in case he didn’t act with due care his actions would interfere with the relationship
Defendant was negligent and failed to act with reasonable care
The relationship was disrupted
The plaintiff was harmed as the result of the defendant’s conduct
Damages a Plaintiff Can Recover When Bringing a Successful Claim Against the Defendant
Damages for interference with economic relations can include recovery for all resulting harm, including expenses, damage to business reputation, mental distress. The victim can also recover punitive damages in case the defendant acted with fraud, malice, or oppression. [video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/output_HD7202.mp4"][/video]
No reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances would have believed that there was a reasonable ground to bring the lawsuit against the plaintiff
Defendant acted mainly for a purpose other than succeeding on the merits of the claim
Plaintiff was harmed as a result of defendant's conduct
Proceedings Which Give Rise to Malicious Prosecution Claims:
Judicial arbitrations
Private arbitration agreements which obviously allow for the malicious prosecution remedy
Probate proceedings
Declaratory relief claims
Order to Show Cause proceedings, associated with pending litigation (except in family law proceedings)
Who Can Be Liable for Malicious Prosecution?
A person, who unsuccessfully prosecuted an underlying action as an individual party plaintiff can be considered liable for malicious prosecution. Though, the degree of personal liability of directors and officers of a corporate plaintiff is not clear. CACI 1501 references those who are “actively involved in bringing or continuing the lawsuit,” which can include those who become later involved in the continued prosecution of the prior action.
The attorney who originally initiated the underlying action is potentially liable for malicious prosecution. Successor or later involved counsel who associate or into the underlying action are also subject to liability.
Types of Damages Which the Victim Can Recover in Successful Malicious Prosecution Claim:
Pain and suffering
Loss of reputation
Emotional distress
Embarrassment
Attorney fees
Lost wages
Costs of litigation
Medical and psychological therapy costs
All court fees and expenses
Malicious Prosecution Video
[video width="1280" height="720" mp4="https://kaass.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/output_HD720.mp4"][/video] Do you feel as though you or a loved one have been a victim of malicious prosecution in California? KAASS Law would be happy to take a look into your situation to see what we can do to help you out. Give us a call now at (310) 943-1171 or get in touch by filling out the form below. [contact-form-7 id="5673" title="KAASS LAW Contact Form"]