Is there a cause of action for intentionally destroying a sand castle someone else has built on a public beach?

Person A went to a public beach early in the morning and spent 8 hours building a magnificent castle from sand.

A had to dig out lots of sand, and overall it was really physically exhausting. The overall effect was wonderful though, the castle was beautiful, and people passing by were admiring the temporary structure made of sand. Some were even taking pictures.

Person B arrived and ran through the castle, ruining it on purpose.

Does A have any legal cause of action against B?

Assume that:

Person A will not have a legal case in most, if any, common law jurisdictions.

Possession requires both physical control and an intention to have control over it.

Even if Person A intends to control other people's access to the sandcastle, there is nothing to suggest they actually have control over it (Person A does not own the sandcastle or the sand itself. The beach is public property).

Physical control does not necessarily mean Person A needs to be the owner, and so this alone is not sufficient to dismiss their case. Crucially, however, labour alone does not create ownership (see: Pierson v Post (1805) in the united-states and Parker v British Airways Board [1982] in england-and-wales). This now allows us to conclude that Person A does not own the sandcastle in any legal sense.

This is an alternative avenue that person A could attempt to rely on instead - although this will also fail.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements:

Person B's conduct satisfies the first requirement, but after this, the argument will fail. Destroying the sandcastle is unlikely to be deemed extreme and outrageous. Similarly, Person A's disappointment is unlikely to be so great as to constitute severe emotional distress. Generally, this requires the problem to be recognised and certified by a medical professional. This allows us to conclude that Person B has not (legally) inflicted severe emotional distress on person A.

uk

I know you asked about the US, but in the UK there is an offence under the Public Order Act: which would seem to cover these circumstances

Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.