Misplaced Pages

#711288

73-473: Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery"; battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with

146-530: A California court ruled that Bidder's Edge's use of a web crawler to cull auction information from eBay's website constituted trespass to chattel and further, that a plaintiff in such a suit need not prove that the interference was substantial. A number of similar cases followed until, in Intel v. Hamidi , the Supreme Court of California held that a plaintiff must demonstrate either actual interference with

219-466: A First Amendment argument held no merit. The court ruled that CompuServe had a viable claim for trespass to chattels and was entitled to injunctive relief to protect its personal property. The temporary restraining order filed on October 24, 1996, was extended until final judgment was entered in the case. Additionally, Cyber Promotions and Sanford Wallace were enjoined from sending unsolicited advertisements to email addresses controlled by CompuServe while

292-539: A business was also jeopardized. Further, the court opinion stated that "if defendants were to prevail on their First Amendment arguments, the viability of electronic mail as an effective means of communication for the rest of society would be put at risk", as consumers would have to wade through so much junk mail that email would no longer be efficient. In response to Cyber Promotions' first argument, Judge Graham conceded that there was, in fact, an "implied privilege" to utilize CompuServe's system to send email messages from

365-473: A cause of action. Incongruity of a defendant's language and action, or of a plaintiff's perception and reality may vitiate an assault claim. In Tuberville v Savage , the defendant reached for his sword and told the plaintiff that " [i]f it were not assize-time , I would not take such language from you". In its American counterpart, Commonwealth v. Eyre , the defendant shouted " [i]f it were not for your gray hairs, I would tear your heart out". In both cases,

438-543: A detailed discussion of all the cases that went into the principle summarized in that one section. By citing a Restatement section in a legal brief, a lawyer may bring to the attention of a judge a carefully studied summary of court action on almost any common law legal doctrine. The judge can then consider the Restatement section and make an informed decision as to how to apply it in the case at hand. While courts are under no formal obligation to adopt Restatement sections as

511-442: A few, such as New Zealand , have criminalized the practice. Perhaps the most common defense for the torts of trespass to the person is that of volenti non fit injuria , literally, "to a willing person, no injury is done", but shortened to "consensual privilege" or "consent". If a plaintiff participates in a sporting activity in which physical contact is ordinary conduct, such as rugby, they are considered to have consented. This

584-437: A fight, some jurisdictions will deny relief in civil action, so long as the injuries caused are proportionate: "in an ordinary fight with fists there is no cause of action to either of [the combatants] for any injury suffered". Other jurisdictions refuse to recognize consent as a defense to mutual combat and instead provide relief under the doctrine of comparative negligence. Medical care gives rise to many claims of trespass to

657-625: A form of " griefing ", may make trespass to chattel an attractive remedy for deleted, stolen, or corrupted virtual property. Trespass to land involves the "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se . While most trespasses to land are intentional, British courts have held liability holds for trespass committed negligently. Similarly, some American courts will find liability for unintentional intrusions only where such intrusions arise under circumstances evincing negligence or involve

730-498: A four-prong test: Depending on the jurisdiction, corporal punishment of children by parents or instructors may be a defense to trespass to the person, so long as the punishment was "reasonably necessary under the circumstances to discipline a child who has misbehaved" and the defendant " exercise[d] prudence and restraint". Unreasonable punishments, such as violently grabbing a student's arm and hair, have no defense. Many jurisdictions, however, limit corporal punishment to parents, and

803-574: A gateway, like a simple ISP , to the Internet at large. One of the primary roles taken on by CompuServe was that of an email service provider . The Defendant, Cyber Promotions, Inc., was an online direct email marketing company, headed by founder and CEO Sanford Wallace . Cyber Promotions was "in the business of sending unsolicited e-mail advertisements [ spam ] on behalf of themselves and their clients to hundreds of thousands of Internet users, many of whom [were] CompuServe subscribers". As

SECTION 10

#1732779464712

876-524: A highly dangerous activity. Exceptions exist for entering land adjoining a road unintentionally (such as in a car accident), as in River Wear Commissioners v Adamson . In some jurisdictions, trespass while in possession of a firearm, which may include a low-power air weapon without ammunition, constitutes a more grave crime of armed trespass. Aside from the surface, land includes the subsoil , airspace and anything permanently attached to

949-550: A nature as to excite an apprehension of battery [bodily injury]". In some jurisdictions, there is no requirement that actual physical violence result—simply the "threat of unwanted touching of the victim" suffices to sustain an assault claim. Consequently, in R v Constanza , the court found a stalker's threats could constitute assault. Similarly, silence, given certain conditions, may constitute an assault as well. However, in other jurisdictions, simple threats are insufficient; they must be accompanied by an action or condition to trigger

1022-713: A part in its creation. I have great faith in the power of such a restatement to unify our law. Andrew Burrows refers to the Restatements of the Law as informing the work of the advisory group that he convened to produce A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment in the introduction to that work. Some of the most renowned legal scholars in the United States, including Judge Richard Posner and law professor Lawrence M. Friedman , have heavily criticized

1095-412: A result of these efforts (as well as others), Sanford Wallace came to be known as "Spamford" Wallace. In the months leading up to the case, CompuServe subscribers complained to the company about the large amount of spam they were receiving (from Cyber Promotions and other mass emailers). Many threatened to discontinue their subscriptions unless CompuServe took preventative measures to block the spam. As

1168-586: A result, CompuServe introduced a set of email filters on its servers to block incoming spam and prevent the spam's delivery to subscribers. In response, Cyber Promotions took measures to circumvent CompuServe's filters, such as disguising the origin of their messages, allowing its unsolicited email messages to reach their destination. On October 24, 1996, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio issued

1241-527: A set of treatises on legal subjects that seek to inform judges and lawyers about general principles of common law . There are now four series of Restatements , all published by the American Law Institute , an organization of judges, legal academics, and practitioners founded in 1923. Individual Restatement volumes are essentially compilations of case law , which are common law judge -made doctrines that develop gradually over time because of

1314-419: A temporary restraining order against Cyber Promotions, preventing them from: Following the issuance of this restraining order, CompuServe filed an application for a preliminary injunction to both extend the duration of this temporary restraining and prevent Cyber Promotions from sending unsolicited advertisements to CompuServe subscribers. This case arises from that application. CompuServe's primary argument

1387-448: A trespass to use that road if the road is constructed with a public use easement , or if, by owner acquiescence or through adverse possession , the road has undergone a common law dedication to the public. In Hickman v Maisey and Adams v. Rivers , the courts established that any use of a road that went beyond using it for its normal purpose could constitute a trespass: " [a]lthough a land owner's property rights may be [s]ubject to

1460-501: Is a tort of strict liability: no intention on the behalf of the defendant is needed, but others require an intent to cause the confinement. Physical force, however, is not a necessary element, and confinement need not be lengthy; the restraint must be complete, though the defendant needn't resist. Conveniently, the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Torts distills false imprisonment liability analysis into

1533-484: Is necessary to protect themselves or someone else, or property". The force used must be proportionate to the threat, as ruled in Cockcroft v Smith . Trespass to chattels (also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property) is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property...proximately caus[ing] injury". While originally a remedy for the asportation of personal property,

SECTION 20

#1732779464712

1606-422: Is not practicable to communicate with the assisted person ... [and] (2) the action taken must be such as a reasonable person would in all the circumstances take, acting in the best interests of the assisted person". Self-defense, or non-consensual privilege, is a valid defense to trespasses against the person, assuming that it constituted the use of " reasonable force which they honestly and reasonably believe

1679-509: Is not the case if the physical contact went beyond what could be expected, such as the use of hand gun during a fistfight, as in Andrepont v Naquin , or where the injuries were suffered not from the plaintiff's participation in the sport but inadequate safety measures taken, as in Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd . Where the plaintiff and defendant voluntarily agree to participate in

1752-457: Is trespass to the person. Whether intent is a necessary element of trespass to the person varies by jurisdiction. Under English decision, Letang v Cooper , intent is required to sustain a trespass to the person cause of action; in the absence of intent, negligence is the appropriate tort. In other jurisdictions, gross negligence is sufficient to sustain a trespass to the person, such as when a defendant negligently operates an automobile and strikes

1825-517: Is unavailable if the plaintiff is a tenant and the defendant a landlord who had no right to give the plaintiff his lease (e.g., an illegal apartment rental, an unauthorized sublet, etc.). Necessity is the situation in which it is vital to commit the trespass; in Esso Petroleum Co v Southport Corporation , the captain of a ship committed trespass by allowing oil to flood a shoreline. This was necessary to protect his ship and crew, however, and

1898-667: The American Law Reports annotations of the Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company. In addition, appendix volumes included digest paragraphs of decisions of state appellate courts and federal courts citing the Restatements on each subject. The third series of Restatements was started in 1987 with a new Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The Restatement, Third, now includes volumes on Agency,

1971-466: The Restatements of the Law : The ALI's aim is to distill the " black letter law " from cases, to indicate a trend in common law, and, occasionally, to recommend what a rule of law should be. In essence, they restate existing common law into a series of principles or rules. Each Restatement section includes a black-letter principle, comments, and illustrations, and, in the form of reporters' notes,

2044-502: The First Amendment to trump private property rights is unwarranted where there are adequate alternative avenues of communication". Given that Cyber Promotions could have easily sent its advertisements to CompuServe's subscribers through a number of different mediums, and that CompuServe's customers had other available means of accessing Cyber Promotion's messages if they were unhappy with the injunction, Judge Graham concluded that

2117-534: The Institute started the Restatement, Second — updates of the original Restatements with new analyses and concepts with and expanded authorities. (A Restatement on Foreign Relations Law of the United States was also undertaken.) The second Restatement of the Law was undertaken to reflect changes and developments in the law, as well as to implement a new format that provided more expansive commentary and more meaningful illustrative material, affording fuller statements of

2190-481: The Internet. However, that privilege was not relevant because CompuServe's policy statement explicitly prohibited spamming. Additionally, Graham asserted that CompuServe made it clear that it did not wish to receive spam from Cyber Promotions and was installing software to filter it out. The fact that Cyber Promotions actively tried to circumvent these filters only exacerbated the issue. In response to Cyber Promotions' second argument, Judge Graham noted that "allowing

2263-452: The Law is one of the most respected and well-used sources of secondary authority, covering nearly every area of common law. While considered secondary authority (compare to primary authority ), the authoritativeness of the Restatements of the Law is evidenced by their acceptance by courts throughout the United States. The Restatements have been cited in over 150,000 reported court decisions. In December 1923, Benjamin N. Cardozo explained

Trespass - Misplaced Pages Continue

2336-594: The Law Governing Lawyers, Property (Mortgages, Servitudes, Wills and Other Donative Transfers), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Suretyship and Guaranty, Torts (Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Economic Harm, and Physical and Emotional Harm), Trusts, and Unfair Competition. New Restatement projects are currently underway as part of the Restatement, Third, series on Conflict of Laws and Torts (Defamation and Privacy, Intentional Torts to Persons, Remedies, and Concluding Provisions). A volume on

2409-618: The Restatements, characterizing them as badly flawed. In a 2007 article, professor Kristin David Adams surveyed and summarized the various critiques of the Restatements, which included the following: Adams then defended the Restatement project by arguing that all these critiques were actually critiques of the common law itself. In the period between 1923 and 1944, the American Law Institute published Restatements of Agency , Conflict of Laws , Contracts , Judgments , Property , Restitution , Security , Torts , and Trusts . This series

2482-459: The United States to cover intangible property , including combating the proliferation of unsolicited bulk email as well as virtual property interests in online worlds. In the late 1990s, American courts enlarged trespass to chattels, first to include the unauthorized use of long distance telephone lines, and later to include unsolicited bulk email. In 1998, a federal court in Virginia held that

2555-543: The United States, the American Law Institute's Restatement of Torts provides a general rule to determine liability for battery: An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person makes the actor liable to the other, if: Battery torts under Commonwealth precedent are subjected to a four point test to determine liability: False imprisonment is defined as " unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement". In some jurisdictions, false imprisonment

2628-412: The abuse of a right of entry, when a person who has the right to enter the land does something not covered by the permission. If the person has the right to enter the land but remains after this right expires, this is also trespass. It is also a trespass to throw anything on the land. For the purposes of trespass, the person who owns the land on which a road rests is treated as the owner; it is not, however,

2701-623: The action was still pending. The final consent order was served by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 9, 1997, permanently enjoining Cyber Promotions from "causing, authorizing, participating in, or assisting others" to send unsolicited email to CompuServe e-mail addresses, or to employ any "false or misleading reference" to CompuServe "in the header of or in connection with any electronic message". Cyber Promotions

2774-527: The courts held that despite a threatening gesture, the plaintiffs were not in immediate danger. The actions must give the plaintiff a reasonable expectation that the defendant is going to use violence; a fist raised before the plaintiff may suffice; the same fist raised behind the window of a police cruiser will not. Battery is "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it". The elements of battery common law varies by jurisdiction. In

2847-408: The defendant moved jewelry from one room to another, where it was stolen. The deceased owner's executor successfully sued her for trespass to chattel. Furthermore, personal property, as traditionally construed, includes living objects, except where property interests are restricted by law. Thus animals are personal property, but organs are not. In recent years, trespass to chattels has been expanded in

2920-444: The defense of necessity was accepted. Necessity does not, however, permit a defendant to enter another's property when alternative, though less attractive, courses of action exist. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. was a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 1997 that set an early precedent for granting online service providers

2993-516: The highway by reasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass; within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway." The principles established in Adams remain valid in American law. There are several defenses to trespass to land; license, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii . License is express or implied permission, given by

Trespass - Misplaced Pages Continue

3066-487: The land, such as houses, and other infrastructure, this is literally explained by the legal maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit . William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England articulated the common law principle cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos , translating from Latin as "for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell". In modern times, courts have limited

3139-508: The law, they often do because such sections accurately restate the already-established law in that jurisdiction, or on issues of first impression, and are persuasive in terms of demonstrating the current trend that other jurisdictions are following. Restatements are rare in common law jurisdictions outside of the United States, where law reports are more frequent. Former Justice of the High Court of Australia William Gummow attributes

3212-438: The nature of the interference. Trespass to chattels typically applies to tangible property and allows the owner of such property to seek relief when a third party intentionally interferes or intermeddles in the owner's possession of his personal property. "Interference" is often interpreted as the "taking" or "destroying" of goods, but can be as minor as "touching" or "moving" them in the right circumstances. In Kirk v Gregory ,

3285-543: The owner of a marketing company committed trespass to chattels against an Internet service provider's computer network by sending 60 million unauthorized email advertisements after being notified that the spam was unauthorized. In America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc. , AOL successfully sued a pornographic website for spamming AOL customers and forging the AOL domain name to trick customers. By the new millennium, trespass to chattel expanded beyond bulk email. In eBay v. Bidder's Edge ,

3358-456: The periphery of the universe— Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum ", "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits". Citizens have a right to fly in the "navigable airspace". Thirty-one years later, in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd , an English court reached a similar conclusion, finding an action for trespass failed because

3431-473: The person for resulting harm caused; the plaintiff's agreement constitutes informed consent . In those cases where the patient does not possess sufficient mental capacity to consent, doctors must exercise extreme caution. In F v West Berkshire Health Authority , the House of Lords instructed British physicians that, to justify operating upon such an individual, there "(1) must ... be a necessity to act when it

3504-431: The person. A physician, "treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient". Should he do so, he commits a trespass to the person and is liable for damages. However, if the plaintiff is informed by a doctor of the broad risks of a medical procedure, there will be no claim under trespass against

3577-483: The physical functionality of the computer system or the likelihood that such interference would occur in the future. The Hamidi decision quickly found acceptance at both the federal and state level. To date, no United States court has identified property rights in items acquired in virtual worlds; heretofore, virtual world providers have relied on end-user license agreements to govern user behavior. Nevertheless, as virtual worlds grow, incidents of property interference,

3650-736: The plaintiff with great force. "Intent is to be presumed from the act itself." Generally, and as defined by Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock , trespass to the person consists of three torts: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. In various common law jurisdictions, assault is both a crime and a tort. Generally, a person commits criminal assault if they purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflict bodily injury upon another; if they negligently inflict bodily injury upon another by means of dangerous weapon; or if through physical menace, they place another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. A person commits tortious assault when they engage in "any act of such

3723-452: The plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it"; and false imprisonment, the " unlawful obstruction or deprivation of freedom from restraint of movement". Trespass to chattel does not require a showing of damages. Simply the "intermeddling with or use of … the personal property" of another gives cause of action for trespass. Since CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. , various courts have applied

SECTION 50

#1732779464712

3796-510: The police to enter land for the purposes of carrying out an arrest, or the California state constitution, which permits protests on grocery stores and strip malls, despite their presenting a general nuisance to store owners and patrons. Jus tertii is where the defendant can prove that the land is not possessed by the plaintiff, but by a third party, as in Doe d Carter v Barnard . This defense

3869-493: The possessor of land, to be on that land. These licenses are generally revocable unless there is contractual agreement preventing them being revoked. Once revoked, a license-holder becomes a trespasser if they remain on the land. Justification by law refers to those situations in which there is statutory authority permitting a person to go onto land, such as the England and Wales' Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 , which allows

3942-454: The principle of stare decisis (precedent). Although Restatements of the Law are not binding authority in and of themselves, they are potentially persuasive when they are formulated over several years with extensive input from law professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. They are meant to reflect the consensus of the American legal community as to what the law is, and, in some cases, what it should become. As Harvard Law School describes

4015-500: The principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage. Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass ; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property". Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. " At common law, every unauthorized entry upon

4088-462: The prospective importance of the Restatements in a lecture at Yale Law School : When, finally, it goes out under the name and with the sanction of the Institute, after all this testing and retesting, it will be something less than a code and something more than a treatise. It will be invested with unique authority, not to command, but to persuade. It will embody a composite thought and speak a composite voice. Universities and bench and bar will have had

4161-480: The reasons for the positions taken. For example, the volumes generally included a set of Reporter's Notes that detailed the reasons on which the principles and rules stated were based and the authorities that supported them. And for the convenience of legal researchers, the second series of volumes also provided cross-references to the key numbers of the West Publishing Company's Digest System and to

4234-543: The requirement for Restatements in the United States to the lack of a nationwide court of final common law adjudication. On subjects where the law is not settled or states differ too widely, the ALI has not been able to produce a Restatement. In the area of criminal law, for example, the ALI formulated the Model Penal Code , intended to guide legislators on what statutes they should enact as law. The Restatements of

4307-452: The right of absolute dominion over the subsurface. For instance, drilling a directional well that bottoms out beneath another's property to access oil and gas reserves is trespass, but a subsurface invasion by hydraulic fracturing is not. Where mineral rights are severed from surface ownership, it is trespass to use another's surface to assist in mining the minerals beneath that individual's property, but, where an emergency responder accesses

4380-409: The right of mere passage, the owner of the soil is still absolute master." British courts have broadened the rights encompassed by public easements in recent years. In DPP v Jones , the court ruled that "the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, providing that the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct

4453-407: The right to prevent commercial enterprises from sending unsolicited email advertising – also known as spam – to its subscribers. It was one of the first cases to apply United States tort law ( Restatement (Second) of Torts §217 and §218) to restrict spamming on computer networks. The court held that Cyber Promotions' intentional use of CompuServe 's proprietary servers to send unsolicited email

SECTION 60

#1732779464712

4526-459: The soil of another was a trespasser "; however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts , liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity. Trespass has also been treated as a common law offense in some countries. There are three types of trespass, the first of which

4599-400: The subsurface following a blowout and fire, no trespass lies. Even the possible subsurface migration of toxic waste stored underground is not trespass, except where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the actions "actually interfere with the [owner's] reasonable and foreseeable use of the subsurface", or, in some jurisdictions, that the subsurface trespasser knows with "substantial certainty" that

4672-570: The tort grew to incorporate any interference with the personal property of another. In some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, trespass to chattels has been codified to clearly define the scope of the remedy; in most jurisdictions, trespass to chattel remains a purely common law remedy, the scope of which varies by jurisdiction. Generally, trespass to chattels possesses three elements: Remedies for trespass to chattel include damages, liability for conversion, and injunction, depending on

4745-429: The toxic liquids will migrate to the neighboring land. Domain of landowners over their airspace is limited to the lower atmosphere. In the United States, United States v. Causby (1946) limited landowner domain to the space below 365 feet (111 m), Justice William O. Douglas reasoned that, should it find in the landowners' favor and accept the "ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of land extend[s] to

4818-485: The unsolicited emails they sent "intentionally intermeddled" with CompuServe's computer systems. Because this intermeddling caused CompuServe's computing resources to slow down, the value of those resources available to CompuServe's paying subscribers was reduced, and monetary damages were incurred. Additionally, the complaints filed by CompuServe subscribers and the fact that some of these complaints resulted in canceled subscriptions, suggested that CompuServe's reputation as

4891-514: The violation of airspace took place several hundred meters above the land: "If the Latin maxim were applied literally it would lead to the absurdity of trespass being committed every time a satellite passed over a suburban garden." The main element of the tort is "interference". This must be both direct and physical, with indirect interference instead being covered by negligence or nuisance . "Interference" covers any physical entry to land, as well as

4964-635: Was a "public utility" that implicitly granted Cyber Promotions permission to send email through its servers. Cyber Promotions also claimed that the free speech clause of the First Amendment gave it the right to send spam to whomever it pleased. Traditionally, one who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if, Relying on the Restatement of Torts , Judge Graham found that Cyber Promotions did indeed trespass on Compuserve's personal property by sending email through its servers. While Cyber Promotions did not actually take possession of CompuServe's computers,

5037-464: Was also required to pay approximately $ 65,000 in CompuServe legal fees. In exchange, CompuServe agreed that Cyber Promotions be allowed to put up ads within the CompuServe internal network as well as send emails to subscribers who had explicitly requested Cyber Promotions' emails. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. is the first of a series of cases where the trespass to chattels doctrine

5110-522: Was an actionable trespass to chattels and granted a preliminary injunction preventing the spammer from sending unsolicited advertisements to any email address maintained by CompuServe. In 1997 the Plaintiff, CompuServe Inc. , was one of the largest commercial online service providers in the United States. Similar to America Online , CompuServe provided its subscribers with access to content both within its own proprietary network as well providing

5183-451: Was later expanded in 2015 and 2019 with publication of the Restatements of Employment Law and Liability Insurance respectively. Projects are currently underway to further expand the series by drafting Restatements on the Law of American Indians, Charitable and Nonprofit Organizations, Children and the Law, Consumer Contracts, Copyright, Corporate Governance, and U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration. In 1952,

5256-471: Was reconfigured and applied to the internet. It set the basis for the prosecution of spam for trespass. Although some believe that applying an old common law of torts to the Internet is a step in the wrong direction, other scholars believe that at the least, it can guide consideration of prospective laws. Restatement of Torts In American jurisprudence , the Restatements of the Law are

5329-474: Was that Cyber Promotions was "trespassing" on CompuServe's personal property whenever it sent spam that passed through CompuServe's email servers on its way to CompuServe subscribers. To prove its case, CompuServe had to show that the act of sending spam through its email servers constituted a trespass on personal property and that they had sustained monetary damages as a result of this trespass. In its defense, Cyber Promotions argued that CompuServe's email service

#711288