Opinion ID: 3015539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: (...continued)

Text: a chattel or interferes with the plaintiff’s use or possession of a chattel without the plaintiff’s consent and without lawful justification.” Pittsburgh Constr. Co. v. Griffith, 834 A.2d 572, 581 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). Although we cannot say definitively absent a factual determination by the District Court, it does not appear that the ramp is a chattel. It appears instead to be a fixture, which is defined as: “An article in the nature of personal property which has been so annexed to the realty that it is regarded as part of the real property. . . . That which is fixed or attached to something permanently as an appendage, and not removable.” B LACK’S L AW D ICTIONARY 638 (6th ed. 1990). Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of action for conversion of fixtures. Norriton E. Realty Corp. v. Central-Penn Nat’l Bank, 254 A.2d 637, 638 (Pa. 1969). Therefore, unless Ride The Ducks could demonstrate that the ramp is a chattel and not a fixture, it would not likely succeed on the merits of its conversion claim. 5 and the second element is satisfied. As for the third element, we hold that Super Ducks has no privilege or justification to interfere with the lease agreement. Finally, Ride The Ducks would be able to prove actual legal damage upon a further determination of the merits. If forced to share the ramp with a competitor, Ride The Ducks would likely lose customers and, in turn, income. Although such injury has not yet occurred, because the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent the occurrence of injuries, the demonstration by Ride The Ducks of a “presently existing actual threat” of injury suffices at this stage of the proceedings. See Cont’l Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chem. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980). For these reasons, Ride The Ducks is likely to succeed on the merits of its tortious interference claim. Ride The Ducks is equally—if not more—likely to prevail on its trespass claim. Under Pennsylvania Law, trespass is an unprivileged, intentional intrusion upon land in possession of another. Kopka v. Bell Tel. Co., 91 A.2d 232, 235 (Pa. 1952). Any attempt by Super Ducks to use the ramp, which, pursuant to the lease agreement, is in the exclusive possession of Ride The Ducks, would constitute trespass. Although Super Ducks protests to the contrary, the fact that Ride The Ducks is a licensee of the ramp is of no consequence. Where an owner of real property would be able to bring an action in trespass, so too may a licensee bring a common law trespass action if the intrusion by a third party disturbs the terms of the license. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 38 A.2d 732, 288 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944). The terms of the license 6 grant Ride The Ducks exclusive use of the ramp. Intrusion by Super Ducks onto the ramp would violate the exclusivity provision of the license. Accordingly, Ride The Ducks has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its trespass claim.