If B pushes A's car around a corner as a joke and A fails to find it for an hour, is B liable for trespass to chattel?

The situation described involves B's actions of pushing A's car around a corner, which results in A being unable to locate their vehicle for an hour. Trespass to chattel refers to the unlawful interference with an individual’s possessory rights to their personal property. In this case, B's act of physically moving A's car interferes with A's ability to use and access their vehicle, thus establishing liability for trespass to chattel.

When evaluating whether B is liable, it's important to recognize that the interference with A's possessory rights does not depend solely on the intent behind the act or the perceived harm (or lack thereof) stemming from it. Pushing A's car, regardless of B's intent as a joke, demonstrates an unauthorized control over A's property, which fits the definition of trespass to chattel. The fact that A could not find their car for an hour indicates a significant interference with A’s property rights.

In this context, the other responses do not accurately reflect the principles of trespass to chattel. A claim of emotional harm does not need to be proven for liability to exist. While B's intent to play a joke might suggest a lack of malice, it does not negate the offense. Lastly, arguing