Trespass and Nuisance Flashcards
Basic elements of Trespass
- Act
- Entry
- Intent
- Wrong
How is “act” interpreted
The lesson of Smith v Stone is that there is no trespass if there is no volitional act leading to entry, but the lesson of Gilbert v Stone is it doesn’t take much to be volitional. (volitional means use of one’s will).
How is “entry” interpreted
The act must lead to entry of plaintiff’s land or some portion of it. In Cleveland Park, the “entry” is crossing the “boundary” of the drain cover and putting a ball inside.
How is “intent” interpreted
The entry must be intentional, but neither harm nor wrongfulness must be intended. The plaintiff in Cleveland Park doesn’t need to establish that the minor defendant intended to block the drain and so intended harm or that he knew he wasn’t authorized to “cross the boundary” of the drain and so intended the wrong of trespass. All the plaintiff needs to establish is that the minor defendant intentionally lifted the cover and placed the ball inside the drain.
How is “wrong” interpreted
The entry must be wrongful, meaning unauthorized.
Nuisance
a substantial and unreasonable interference with someone’s use and enjoyment of their land.
Basic elements of nuisance
a. intent (per Garratt v Dailey) and
b. unreasonableness
How is reasonableness determined?
- trier of fact compares the utility of the actor’s conduct with the gravity of harm suffered as a result of that conduct.
- trier of fact asks whether the harm to the plaintiff is serious and requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff and others would make continuation of the conduct not feasible. If the answers are yes and no, then the harm is unreasonable so the actor must pay.
- trier of fact asks whether the harm results from the invasion is so severe and greater than the other should be required to bear without compensation. If answers are yes and yes, then the harm is unreasonable so the actor must pay.
