Harrison v. Petroleum Surveys
80 So. 2d 153, 1955 La. App. LEXIS 787, 4 Oil & Gas Rep. 1506 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner possesses an exclusive property right to take wild animals from their land, and a trespasser who damages that right is liable for the resulting economic loss, even if the trespass was unintentional. The measure of damages is the loss of future profits reasonably expected from trapping on the land, not the value of the animals themselves.
Facts:
- William H. Harrison and his family (the Harrisons) owned marshland that was economically valuable for muskrat trapping.
- Petroleum Surveys, Inc., while conducting geophysical explorations, unintentionally trespassed on a two-acre portion of the Harrisons' property.
- The trespass occurred due to an honest surveying error.
- Petroleum Surveys' employees used heavy vehicles called "marsh buggies" that churned through the marsh, leaving deep tracks.
- The operation of the marsh buggies crushed the ground, destroyed the muskrat-supporting grass, and killed muskrats in their underground nests and tunnels.
- This damage rendered the two-acre tract of land valueless for muskrat trapping for a significant period.
- Prior to the trespass, the Harrisons' trapping operations on this tract yielded an average of 100 muskrats per year.
Procedural Posture:
- The Harrisons (plaintiffs) sued Petroleum Surveys, Inc. (defendant) in a Louisiana district court (trial court) for damages caused by geophysical explorations on their land.
- The trial court found that the defendant had trespassed but sustained the defendant's legal contention that the landowners had no cause of action because they do not own wild animals.
- The trial court dismissed the Harrisons' suit following a trial on the merits.
- The Harrisons (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, with Petroleum Surveys, Inc. as the appellee.
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 a landowner have a cause of action for damages, measured by the loss of future trapping profits, against an unintentional trespasser who damages the land's capacity to support wild animals, even though the landowner does not own the wild animals themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Tate, Judge
Yes, a landowner has a cause of action for damages because the trespass interfered with the landowner's exclusive right to take animals from their land. While a landowner does not own wild animals ('ferae naturae') on their property, they do own the exclusive right to hunt or trap them, which is a valuable property right. The defendant's trespass, though unintentional, was a wrongful act under LSA-C.C. Article 2315 that caused provable damage to this right. The court rejected the argument that damages were precluded because the state owns wild animals. The proper measure of damages is not the value of the muskrats killed, but the economic loss to the landowner resulting from the temporary destruction of the land's value for trapping, calculated as the loss of reasonably expected future profits.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between ownership of wild animals and the ownership of the exclusive right to take those animals from one's property. It establishes that damage to the land's habitat which interferes with this exclusive right constitutes a compensable tort, regardless of the trespasser's intent. The decision provides a significant precedent for measuring damages in such cases by focusing on the lost economic value of the property right (i.e., lost future profits) rather than the value of the animals or the cost of land restoration. This valuation method directly compensates the landowner for the harm to their business interest in the land's resources.
