MBE Tip:
The intent required for an intentional tort? The intent to commit the tort.
The intent to do the act that ultimately results in the tort. 
So, when the person not only subjectively believes he owns property but reasonably (objectively) believes that, you might think it can't be trespass. "Trespass is an intentional tort and the person didn't intend to trespass!" Hold that thought.
The person intended to put one foot in front of the other foot to walk on the property that the person thought was his property. He intended to do the act that resulted in him ending up on property owned by another person. Assuming no defenses, it's trespass.
Apply this to all the intentional torts. Didn't intend to take someone's coat because it was the same exact coat he owned? Might still be conversion or trespass to chattels, since he intended to reach out his arm and take that coat.
As as aside, the coat example would not be larceny, and it's worth considering why such things are treated differently.
Really helpful breakdown of intent in intentional torts—this is one of those MBE topics where small distinctions can easily change the outcome of a question. The difference between acting with purpose versus knowledge of substantial certainty is especially important, and getting comfortable with applying it to scenarios like battery and assault really makes exam practice much smoother.
ReplyDeleteFor law students and exam prep workshops, having practical essentials can also make long study sessions more manageable. A custom insulated protein shaker, mini thermos bottle, and custom stainless steel tumbler are simple but useful items for daily study routines and exam preparation environments. For more ideas, visit VKraf Gifts or contact 016-3489525.
Thanks for sharing this—really solid explanation that helps make a tricky MBE topic much easier to understand.