Baker v. Shymkiv
451 N.E.2d 811, 6 Ohio B. 206, 6 Ohio St. 3d 151 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intentional trespasser is liable for all damages that are a direct result of the trespass, regardless of whether those damages were foreseeable.
Facts:
- The Shymkivs intentionally trespassed upon land possessed by another party.
- The act of trespassing caused harm to a person on the property, Mr. Baker.
- The harm and resulting emotional distress ultimately caused Mr. Baker's death.
- The death of Mr. Baker was not a foreseeable consequence of the Shymkivs' act of trespassing.
Procedural Posture:
- A lawsuit was filed against the Shymkivs in an Ohio trial court for damages arising from a trespass.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury that liability could only be imposed for damages that were foreseeable.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Shymkivs, as appellants, subsequently appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Ohio law require that damages resulting from an intentional trespass be foreseeable for the trespasser to be held liable for them?
Opinions:
Majority - Locher, J.
No, damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable. The court classifies intentional trespassers as "less-favored wrongdoers" for whom the traditional negligence standard of foreseeability does not apply. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 162, the court reasons that a person who intentionally trespasses subjects themselves to liability for any physical harm caused by their conduct during the trespass, irrespective of whether the conduct would otherwise create liability. The trespasser assumes the risk of liability for any resulting bodily harm, no matter how innocent their conduct might otherwise be. This approach prioritizes full compensation for the innocent victim over protecting an intentional wrongdoer from liability for speculative or unexpected damages.
Concurring - Holmes, J.
No, the element of foreseeability is not required when an intentional tort has been committed. This case involves an intentional interference with a protected right—the right to the inviolability of one's property—which historically allows recovery for all resulting damages, even those that are 'parasitic' to the original tort. Unlike negligence cases, where foreseeability is key, intentional torts that violate protected rights have always permitted broader recovery. Furthermore, the harm in this case was not speculative but was objectively ascertainable, as the emotional distress caused by the trespass manifested in the death of Mr. Baker.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict liability standard for damages arising from intentional trespass in Ohio, clearly distinguishing it from negligence. By removing the requirement of foreseeability, the court expands the scope of liability for intentional tortfeasors, holding them responsible for all direct consequences of their actions. This ruling strengthens protections for landowners and creates a significant deterrent against intentional intrusion by ensuring trespassers bear the full risk of any harm they cause, predictable or not. The decision reinforces the common law principle that intentional wrongdoers are held to a higher degree of accountability than those who are merely negligent.
