f Damages Need not be damages for Trespass to occur merely trampling the grass

F damages need not be damages for trespass to occur

This preview shows page 6 - 9 out of 17 pages.

something over a third, liable for trespass to both 2nd and third tracts. f. Damages – Need not be damages for Trespass to occur, merely trampling the grass is damage enough i. Trespass by Livestock – when an animal leaves on tract and enters the tract of another, the owner is subject to strict liability for the intrusion. g. Cases – i. Daugherty v. Stepp – Whether land need to be fenced or marked to be trespassed upon. No, title to property is constructive notice. Fences
Image of page 6
ii.Herrin v. Sutherland – Whether D is liable for trespass for shooting a shotgun over the land, not setting foot on the land or leaving anythingon it? iii.Rogers v. Board of Road Commr’s for Kent County– Whether failure toremove a stake in the ground that was permitted to be there for a certain part of the year only constitutes trespass? iv.Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.– Whether particles leaving a smokestack carried upon the wind satisfy intent for intentional trespass. Whether intentional deposit of microscopic particles give rise to action for invasion of a person’s exclusive possession of property? Whether trespass requires proof of actual damages? h. Hypotheticals i. A has permission to hunt on B’s land. While he is there A cuts some firewood and hauls it home. Trespass to land? Yes, consent was for hunting, not timber cutting. ii. A buys a right-of-way from B. A comes to construct a road on his right-of-way and finds that B has installed a building on it. B claims he can do what he wants because he owns the land. Who is liable for trespass? B is. A right-of-way is a possessory right. A is the possessor of the property in question. E. Trespass to Chattel and Conversion – Two torts that overlap. Differ from Trespass to Land by requiring actual damage, significant deprivation of use, or dispossession. The difference in Trespass to Chattel and Conversion is a matter of degree. a. Trespass to Chattel – the intentional interference with the right of possession of personal property. The defendant’s acts must intentionally damage the chattel, deprive the possessor of its use for a substantial period of time or totally dispossess the chattel from the victim. i. Act – conscious, volitional movement ii. Intent – single intent 1. Bad faith not required – it is sufficient the actor intends to damage or possess a chattel which belongs to another 2. Mistake is not a defense – Ranson v. Kitner iii. Invasion of Chattel Interest 1. Dispossession – Stealing or asserting dominion and control over a chattel, Depriving possessor of use of chattel for a substantial amount of time 2. Intermeddling – causing actual damages to chattel
Image of page 7
iv. Plaintiff is in possession or is entitled to immediate possession – Trespass to chattel is a possessory right, not an owner’s right.
Image of page 8
Image of page 9

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture