Trespass Flashcards
Elements of Trespass
D engages in a volitional act that causes some object to enter P’s land which entry is wrongful (w/o permission or authorization)
(1) Act (2) Entry (3) Wrong (4) Intent
Restatement 158 Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land
One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally
1. Enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or third person to do so, or
2. Remains on the land, or
3. Fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove
Act Element of Trespass
There must be a volitional act leading to entry (but it doesn’t take much to be volitional!). Smith v. Stone & Gilbert v. Stone
Entry Element of Trespass
The act must lead to the entry onto the plaintiff’s land or part of it. This may be entry of the person, a thing, or third person. Smith v. Stone
Intent Element of Trespass
Only the entry must be intentional, the harm and wrongfulness do not have to be intended. Southern Counties v. RKO & Longnecker v. Zimmerman.
Wrongful Element of Trespass
The entry must be wrongful or unauthorized. Wrongful doesn’t mean harmful. Cartan v. Cruz & Copeland v. Hubbard.
Remedies for Trespass
From every direct invasion of the person or property of another, the law infers some damage, without proof of actual injury. For trespass, P is always entitled to damages even if P was benefitted by D’s actions. Longenecker v. Zimmerman
A court may order damages and not an injunction if the injunction would harm defendant and not benefit plaintiff (except protecting their property rights). Crescent Mining v. Silver King Mining
Privilege Defense to Trespass
Privilege is a justification
1. Fairness or Reciprocity: Conduct is wrong if it does not show respect for other’s persons or property and unfairly subjects them to nonreciprocal risks
2. Utility or Efficiency: Conduct is wrong if it wastes resources and does not bring about an efficient level of accidents and safety.
Takings Law Defense to Trespass
The government can take private property for public use, but the constitution requires compensation. Monongahela v. US.
Exhibits loss spreading and fairness
Public Necessity Defense to Trespass
“Police power” justified by public necessity generally does not require compensation, but loss spreading
principles do when a loss for the good of the public would otherwise fall to an innocent homeowner. Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual.
Private Necessity Defense to Trespass
An emergency threatening human life justifies trespass. Ploof v. Putnam.
An emergency threatening property damage justifies trespass, but might also require compensation if damage is caused. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transport.
