Wiseman v. Schaffer
115 Idaho 537, 768 P.2d 800, 1989 Ida. App. LEXIS 21 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An actor commits the tort of conversion by intentionally exercising dominion or control over another's property without authorization, regardless of the actor's good faith, mistake, or lack of intent to interfere with the owner's rights.
Facts:
- Larry and Freda Wiseman parked their Ford pickup at the Ross Point Husky Truck Stop in Post Falls, Idaho, while they were away on a long-haul trucking job.
- During their absence, an imposter posing as Larry Wiseman telephoned David Schaffer, a tow truck operator.
- The imposter instructed Schaffer to tow the Wisemans' pickup from the truck stop to the yard of a local welding shop.
- The imposter informed Schaffer that $30 for the towing fee had been left on the sunvisor inside the pickup.
- Schaffer located the pickup, found the cash as described, and towed the vehicle to the welding shop yard.
- Sometime after Schaffer left the pickup at the welding shop, the vehicle was stolen by an unknown third party.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry and Freda Wiseman sued David Schaffer in the magistrate division (a trial court) for conversion and negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Schaffer.
- The magistrate division entered a judgment dismissing the Wisemans' lawsuit.
- The Wisemans, as appellants, appealed to the district court, which acted as an intermediate appellate court.
- The district court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate division.
- The Wisemans, as appellants, appealed further to the Court of Appeals of Idaho, with Schaffer as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person commit conversion by exercising dominion over another's personal property without the owner's consent, even if that person mistakenly believes they have authorization from the owner and does not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Swanstrom, Judge
Yes. A person commits conversion by exercising dominion over another's property without authorization, and liability attaches even if the action was based on a good faith mistake. Conversion is defined as any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal property that is inconsistent with the owner's rights. Schaffer exercised dominion over the Wisemans' pickup by towing it. This act was inconsistent with the Wisemans' ownership rights because they had not given consent. The court found that an actor's good faith or mistaken belief that they have consent is not a defense to conversion. The intent required is the intent to exercise control over the property, not the intent to commit a tort or permanently deprive the owner. Because Schaffer's unauthorized act of towing the truck led to its ultimate loss, the subsequent theft by a third party does not absolve him of liability for conversion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that conversion is a strict liability tort, distinguishing it sharply from negligence. The decision establishes that an actor's subjective state of mind, such as good faith or mistake, is irrelevant to the determination of liability for conversion; the focus is solely on the unauthorized exercise of dominion over property. By citing and directing the lower court to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A, the court modernized Idaho's conversion jurisprudence. This precedent significantly impacts bailees, agents, and anyone handling property on behalf of others, as it holds them liable for the full value of the property if they act on mistaken or fraudulent instructions, even if they are not negligent.
