100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 81 - 83 out of 101 pages.
Burns Philp Food, Inc. v. Cavalea Cont’l Freight, Inc. (p.814) – intent to invade spaceRule: Trespass as a strict liability offense. Cavalea did not consent to the construction of a fence on its property by BPF.T.Ct. = Cavalea may remove the fence, but no damagesAppellate Division= Cavalea entitled to damagesoNot possible for Cavalea to have consented to the building of the fence on their property*While the act must have been intentionally undertaken, there need not be any intention to do harm to the plaintiff or to invade property that the actor knows to be owned or possessed by someone else, just as there need not be any unreasonable conduct. Nonharmful trespasses do not generate a significant compensatory award but might generate substantial punitiveKopka v. Bell Tel. Co.(p.820) – liable for all personal injuries – proximate and indirectContractor dug holes for Bell without permission, Kopka injured foot.Rule: Recover from both because Bell authorizedit. Bell Tel. hired independent contractor to dig holes; Kopka finds out about the holes, goes to find out about it and injures his foot81
P’s initial action was in negligence – court rejected this claim, stated that P could only recover for Ds invasion of Ps landIssue of proximate cause – is the hole dug by the third party D the proximate cause of the injury?Rule: the intention which is required to make the actor liable is an intention to enter upon the particular piece of land in question irrespective of whether the actor knows or should know that he is not entitled to enter (restatement)oSecond Rule: one who authorizes or directs another to commit an act which consitutes a trespass to another’s land is himself liable as a trespasser to the same extent as if the trespass were committed directly by himself, and this is true even though the authority or direction be given to one who is an independent contractor – vicarious liabilityoTrespasser is liable not only for personal injuries resulting directly and proximately from the trespass but also for those which are indirect and consequentialoIf the owner or possessor of land, willfully, voluntarily, or by negligence, himself brings about the injury to his person, such an injury cant be said to be consequent upon the trespass to the land, and in that event the trespasser would not be liableoAuthorization doctrine: gets rid of respondent superior; one who authorizes or directs another on to someone’s land, which constitutes a trespass to another’s land makes him a trespasser as though it were committed by himself***SPACE DELETED***Defense to Trespass: NECESSITYYou are permitted in intentionally trespassing when circumstances create conditions that allow a person to interfere with another’s interest to aid themselves/maintain your ownoDoes not give P the right to the property, just the right to enterLimitation: IF YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE LIABLEPrivilege to trespass, NOT to consume.