Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Free Legal Encyclopedia: Tonnage tax to Umpire » Trespass - Common-law Form Of Action, Trespass To Land, Trespass By One Entitled To Possession

Trespass - Trespass To Land

property person trespasser action

In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property. An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing wrongful acts after entry. For example, a mail carrier has a privilege to walk up the sidewalk at a private home but is not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property. For example, a person could sue birdwatchers who intruded onto his land but would probably receive only nominal damages. A farmer who discovers several persons cutting down valuable hardwood trees for firewood could recover a more substantial amount in damages.

Trespassers are responsible for nearly all the consequences of their unlawful entry, including those that could not have been anticipated or are the result of nothing more wrongful than the trespass itself. For example, if a trespasser carefully lights a fire in the stove of a lake cabin and a fault in the stove causes the cabin to burn down, the trespasser can be held liable for the fire damage.

Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however, the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation.

It may be a trespass to tunnel or mine under another person's property, to force water or soil under the property, or to build a foundation that crosses under the boundary line. Underground encroachments are usually an exception to the rule that no harm needs to be shown in order to prove a trespass. Generally, trespass actions are permitted only where there is some damage to the surface or some interference with the owner's rights to use her property.

Trespass - Trespass By One Entitled To Possession [next] [back] Trespass - Common-law Form Of Action

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

10 months ago

this note help me to do asgnmnt..tq..=)

Vote down Vote up

about 1 year ago

we are landlord and a lady tenant was disgusted because bathtub had a leak. Weather was like Blizzard for few days. Anyway we did glue it and wrap with tape. We told her she would have to let glue etc. cure for at least 3 days. THus she she said "This is Unacceptable" So we asked her if she wanted to break lease. We thought she had another place to go....Anyway, she said "YES" so we said very well, the lease is broken now. Time was 8:00 PM" We explaine to her we would prorate rent and deposit. She was agreeable to that. We explained she had other expenses not yet satisfied. $182.00 for pouring paint in home drains pluging up sewer system some 4 months before. Also carpet in bedroom now ha big black stain we couldn't remove. It has to be replaced. She looked surprised. She know of the bills from our past conversations about her Paintiing episode;. Carpet was most recent. Anyway we said we'd hold out those expenses. Now it get interesting. That happend on 24 Jan. 2011 and she is still in residence at address and wants a letter stating cause for us breaking lease and date we did it. Rent is due on 1st of month. We have since posted on her door a letter stating from 1st of Feb a 30 day notice to vacate as required by Landlord Law in Kansas. Additionally we said although lease was cancele you still owe us mone (what normal rent was before she got her BREAK. We also said lease an rules and signatres to Addendum's would remain in effect. Her final day is 3 March 2011. We will post a 3 day quit on her door 2 Feb. 2011 and begin collection long before her 30days transpire. We made the mistake but she was misleaing us as well. This coul be consiered FRAUD as well. So Do you think we're on the right track? We feel we have right to terminate a person's lease before it is fulfilled if they are the ones who want out. We see it serves no good end to keep a tenant when they don't want to be there. They can be quit damaging to our property.



What's you opinion please...Sorry for the lengthy message



XMY Ill