Poggi v. Scott

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsConversionconversiondominion and controlstrict liability tortgood faith no defensemistakepersonal property

Facts

Plaintiff stored about 210 barrels of wine in a locked cellar room in a building he occupied as a subtenant, paying rent through the Sanitary Laundry Company. After defendant bought the building, plaintiff was not informed of the change in ownership, and his wine remained in the cellar when the Laundry Company vacated. Defendant later purported to sell barrels in the cellar to Bernardini for fifteen dollars, believing they were old barrels, though he stated the bargain would be different if the barrels contained something. Bernardini and others carted off and shipped away plaintiff's wine.

Issue

Whether a defendant commits conversion by selling another person's barrels and their contents, even if he claims he believed the barrels were empty junk and lacked wrongful intent or knowledge that they contained wine. Also, whether plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury rather than a nonsuit.

Rule

The gist of conversion is the defendant's unwarranted interference with the plaintiff's dominion over property from which injury results. Neither good nor bad faith, nor care or negligence, nor knowledge or ignorance, nor wrongful motive or intent, is essential to liability; a person who exercises unjustifiable dominion over another's property is liable for conversion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nolan Pierce bought a small warehouse that still contained several sealed wooden crates in a back room used by a former subtenant. Believing the crates were abandoned scrap, Nolan sold them for $40 to Vera Mendez, who hauled them away; the crates actually belonged to Omar Haddad and contained antique tools worth thousands.

Is Nolan liable to Omar for conversion?

Explanation. The majority rule is that conversion rests on an unwarranted interference with the plaintiff's dominion over property from which injury results. Good faith, ignorance, wrongful motive, intent, and negligence are not essential. By selling crates that were not his, Nolan exercised unjustifiable dominion over Omar's property, and Omar suffered loss when they were removed. (Derived from Poggi v. Scott (n.d.).)