Rights of Ownership and Their Protections

The Possessory Interest

Trespass

• One has a general duty not to enter someone else’s land without permission

• In general, trespass is like battery- trespassers are punished for the right to personal autonomy, rather than exclusively for the harm caused

  • Trespass actions were used historically to resolve disputes over land and courts did not want to require or encourage there be an aggressive act on the land to get the case resolved

• Exceptions to the Duty Not to Enter:

  1. Necessity – imminent threat to life or limb

  2. Public Access

  3. Government officials

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes: The easy question in this case was in regards to primary legal rights and obligations – Jacque had the right to exclude people from traveling on his land, and he indeed explicitly asserted such right against Steenberg Homes, but Steenberg still traveled the land anyway to pull a motor home. Ground was snow covered, so no physical damage to the property.

• Key question in the case: what is the appropriate remedy? [remedies are dependent on the purpose of primary rights and obligations]

  • No compensatory damages were awarded, only nominal. The question is thus whether nominal damages will allow for punitive damage recovery

    • If we DON’T allow punitive recovery, the lack of compensatory damages will allow others to decide whether it is worth it for them to trespass

• Side note: why have nominal damages in cases where there are no compensatory damages?: Nominal damages provide a legal remedy settling a boundary dispute (so the parties can get a legally dispositive answer that they need to know

• Remember the possibility of Necessity (See below)

• Stands for many different remedies available to the landowner to protect their right to exclude, depending on the particular situation (call & have them arrested, compensatory (make them pa for damages), punitive damages (make them pay just for trespassing)

The Ad Coelum Rule

Ad Coelum Rule: Says that an owner of real property has rights that extend below and above the earth. Justification for the rule is that land lacks value if it is not accompanies by the right to place structures on the land.

Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport: Concerns where the exclusion line lies (ex. how high above your property). There are clear lines on the surface, but people use “up” as well. How far can they go up or down?

• The CL rule was a latin phrase that says you own all the way up and all the way down. This is obviously not true.

• Court holds that airplane overflights are NOT trespass.

• In terms of land rights:

• If there were no height restrictions and you build an Eiffel tower and a plane crashes into it, they have now trespassed

• Might be able to have a claim against the overflight on a nuisance ground. Probably a substantial interference-planes are very loud, but most likely not unreasonable-benefits far outweigh the costs.

  • What about if it is really close? Shouldn’t there be a personal bubble?

• How far does the right to exclude go? Does not extend upwards indefinitely, limited to what landowner uses above his land, usually subject to a personal bubble [nobody can build on your vertical lines up – (as that would prevent you from building), but no remedy for air travel absent such buildings

Exceptions to Right to Exclude

Necessity

Ploof v. Putnam: Defendant was the owner of a dock, plaintiff was with his family sailing in a violent storm. Plaintiff attempted to sail up to Defendant’s dock to dock himself to safety, but the defendant’s servant refused and the boat crashed, severly injuring the plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff is suing defendant for not allowing him to attach to his dock in a time of necessity.

• “the doctrine of necessity applies with special force to the preservation of human life”

• Court holds that in cases such as this, plaintiff has a right to “trespass” (although it is not called trespass) on the land of another.

• Right to exclude temporarily shifts to those in necessity (temporary easement?)

Why do we have a doctrine of necessity?

Because of the hold-out problem. Ploof would try to negotiate to use his dock, but since Putnam knows his life is at stake he will demand a ridiculous price. So, we let Ploof tie up.

Vincent v. Lake Erie: Boat at dock was tied up lawfully. It was supposed to leave but wouldn’t because a storm was coming. Storm came and slammed boat into dock, damaging the dock

• Necessity only changes “ownership” temporarily (different than imminent domain in that imminent domain changes property rights forever)

• Restitution protects the right to exclude here – those in necessity are in the best position to make choice w/r/t to use and access, but they should have to pay for what...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Long Merril & Smith Property Outline.