Torts - Trespass

Trespass to Land

Actor physically invading or causing a physical invasion of land lawfully possessed by another

• All that matter is whether the actor set out to make or remain in contact with land, and whether the actor did in fact make or remain in contact

  • Immaterial to issue of liability whether actor took reasonable care to prevent trespass

• Strict Liability Tort

Intent - Trespass to Land

The defendant need only have the intent to enter the land (or to cause a physical invasion), not the intent to commit a wrongful trespass. In other words, the defendant need not know that the land belongs to another. Mistake of fact is not a defense.

Physical Invasion

The defendant need not personally enter onto the plaintiff’s land; intentionally flooding the plaintiff’s land, throwing an object (e.g., a rock) onto it, or intentionally emitting particulates into the air over the land will each suffice.

• Additionally, the defendant’s failure to leave the plaintiff’s property after his lawful right of entry has expired constitutes a physical invasion.

Burns Philp Food v. Cavalea

Rule of Law: Under Illinois law, a trespass claim does not require the claimant to give notice to the trespasser.

Facts: P due to record errors was paying taxes on D’s land. D refused reimbursement, P sued but D counterclaimed P’s fence trespassing on property, no notice until counterclaim

Intentional and Strict Liability are…

• Not contradictory

  • If actor unintentionally loses control of car and crashes into residence, did not commit trespass because he had no intention to make contact with property

Trespass may be committed…

• on, beneath, or above the surface of earth

Other forms of trespass

• refusal to leave another’s land even after initial consent

• Failure to remove an object from another’s land is trespass, even if initial placement of object was not tortious

• actor commits trespass at specific direction of another, both are subject to trespass liability

Private Necessity to Trespass

Qualified privilege to protect an interest of D when interference is reasonably necessary to prevent. Despite privilege, property owner entitle to recover actual damages, but can’t use force to eject or collect nominal and punitive damages.

• A defendant is not entitled to the protection of this privilege on behalf of another if the defendant knows or has reason to know that the other person is unwilling for the defendant to take such action.

Public Necessity to Trespass

Private proerty may be intruded upon or destroyed when necessary to protect a large number of people from public disaster. Not liable even if original entry not necessary, as long as he reasonably believed

• The privilege is absolute. As long as the defendant acts reasonably, he is not liable for any damage to the property. He is not liable even if the original entry was not necessary, as long as he reasonably believed that the necessity existed. The privilege lasts only as long as the emergency continues.

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation

Rule of Law: A party who damages the property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for the resulting damage.

Facts: D unload on P’s dock, storm developed so boat remained fastened. Damages to dock, P sought damages from D but D argues “an act of god”

Dissent: If ship was lawfully docked and unable to leave without unreasonable risk, damage should be considered inevitable accident, not actionable

Damages

No proof of actual damages is required; nominal damages may be awarded. The defendant is liable for harm not only to the land itself and structures on it but also for bodily harm to the possessor of the land and members of his family attributable to the trespass, even if the defendant had no reason to foresee such harm or otherwise would not be liable (e.g., accidental (non-negligent) harm)

Permission

1. Voluntariness

2. Communication

3. Scope

Copeland v. Hubbard 

Rule of Law: A trespass claim may be established where the alleged trespasser exceeds the scope of consent, which is not limited to a geographical area
Facts: Vet had permission to bring student to P’s home, student was employee of D who secretly videotaped vet