Possessor's rights/limits [last updated 10.15]

Trespass

unprivileged physical invasion of property possessed by another

Trespass to Chattels (Personal Property)

intentional interference with the possession of personal property; "chattel" being the traditional legal term for an item of personal property

3 EGs of Privileged Entry (When Entry is Lawful)

• Consent: The property owner has given permission to enter

• Anti-Discrimination Laws: The owner attempts to exclude a person for an impermissibly discriminatory reason

• Necessity: Entry is required due to urgent necessity (such as seeking shelter from life-threatening weather, as illustrated in Commonwealth v. Magadini)

Civil Trespass vs. Criminal Trespass

• Civil Trespass: Tort; Intent is not an element. If a person inadvertently or accidentally walks onto another person's land without privilege, they have committed a civil trespass

  • bc most technical trespasses cause little to no physical damage, landowners rarely have a financial incentive to sue, making civil trespass lawsuits relatively uncommon compared to the frequency of actual trespassing

• Criminal Trespass: intent is a required element; otherwise, same basic physical elements as civil trespass

Commonwealth v Magadini (trespass)

Whether homeless M presented sufficient evidence to receive a necessity-defense jury instruction for trespassing to escape dangerous cold when he had no effective lawful alternative.

• M trespassed into private buildings to escape severe cold, claiming no lawful alternatives; sought a necessity defense for 7 trespass charges, incl. one where he used bathroom

HOLDING: held for M. Vacated 6 convictions + remanded bc no effective legal alternatives; affirmed 7th bc no imminent danger.

Food Lion Inc v Capital Cities/ABC Inc (trespass)

issue: Whether ABC reporters committed trespass by obtaining Food Lion jobs through resume lies and secretly filming employees/bad food-handling practices.

HOLDING: Partly yes. Resume lies alone did not constitute trespass because reporters were authorized to enter as employees. But secretly filming in non-public areas while breaching their duty of loyalty as employees + exceeded the scope of consent and constituted trespass.

Intel Corp v Hamidi (trespass of chattel)

Issue: Whether unsolicited e-mails constitute trespass to chattels when they distract employees but do not damage or impair the employer’s computer system.

• Facts: Former Intel engineer H sent 6 mass e-mails internally criticizing Intel to 1000+ employees over 21 months. Intel sued for trespass to chattels, though its computer system suffered no damage or impairment.

HOLDING: NO. trespass to chattels requires injury to the property or a legally protected interest in it. Because H’s e-mails caused no damage or functional impairment, employee distraction alone was insufficient.

Nuisance

unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of real property

reqs to bring nuisance claim for P + note on who D can be

P must have interest in real property to bring a claim;

D can be anyone unreasonably interfering w that enjoyment

Private Nuisance vs. Public Nuisance: 2 differences

scope

• private N = Affects a single landowner or a specific, localized group of landowners

• Public N = Affects the general public as a whole

plaintiffs

• Private N = individual private landowners or groups of impacted neighbors

• Public N = initiated by govt entities on behalf of the public

  
  

3 differences bw nuisance and trespass

• Invasion: Trespass requires physical entry; nuisance can involve nonphysical effects (e.g., noise/pollution).

• Harm: Nuisance requires actual interference with use/enjoyment; trespass requires no actual harm.

• Unreasonableness: Nuisance requires unreasonable interference; trespass does not.

Prah v Maretti (nuisance)

issue: Whether blocking sunlight to a neighbor’s solar heating system can constitute a private nuisance, even when the construction is lawful and not malicious.

• P sued neighbor M for private nuisance after M planned to build a home that would block sunlight to P’s solar heating system. M followed proper local constr. laws when creating bldg plans

HOLDING: potentially yes; unreasonable obstruction of sun may = private nuisance under the reasonable-use doctrine; remanded for trial

DISSENT

• M lawfully built home for legit purposes, w/o malice. P’s solar system = unusually sensitive use, and a neighbor’s lawful construction shouldn’t become a nuisance merely bc it blocks sunlight.

City of New York v Chevron Corporation (nuisance)

issue: Whether NYC could use state tort law (nuisance + trespass) to recover climate-related costs from fossil fuel companies for their global greenhouse gas emissions.

HOLDING: No. Global emissions claims require uniform federal law, preempting state tort claims. Clean Air Act also displaces federal common-law claims bc it gives the EPA authority to regulate domestic emissions.