If A mistakenly takes B's hat, and it is lost down a manhole shortly after, is this considered conversion?

In the scenario presented, A's act of mistakenly taking B's hat constitutes conversion, which is defined as an intentional interference with another person's right to their property. The key aspect that makes this an instance of conversion lies in the fact that A exercised dominion over B's hat without permission, thereby interfering with B's property rights.

If A had taken the hat with the genuine belief that it was theirs or had simply picked it up absentmindedly without any intention to disturb B’s ownership, the analysis might differ. However, since A did take the hat, even mistakenly, this act reflects an exercise of control that qualifies as conversion under the law.

In this case, it does not matter that the hat was lost shortly thereafter due to a subsequent accident. The loss of the hat is a result of A's initial act of taking it without the right to do so. Therefore, A can be held liable for conversion, as A's initial control over the property—regardless of intention—was improper, fulfilling the criteria necessary for conversion.

Factors such as A's intention and the nature of the mistake are relevant but do not eliminate the liability in this scenario since the wrongful taking aligns with the definition of conversion.