Longenecker v. Zimmerman
1954 Kan. LEXIS 358, 175 Kan. 719, 267 P.2d 543 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Any unauthorized entry onto the land of another constitutes a trespass from which the law infers damage, entitling the property owner to at least nominal damages, regardless of the trespasser's motive or whether any actual harm was caused.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant were next-door neighbors for approximately five years.
- Three cedar trees, which Plaintiff valued for shade and ornamentation, were growing on her property about two to three feet from the boundary line she shared with Defendant.
- On September 8, 1950, Defendant, mistakenly believing the trees were on her own property, hired the Arborfield Tree Surgery Company.
- Without Plaintiff's permission, the tree company entered her property and cut approximately ten feet off the tops of the three cedar trees.
- Plaintiff wanted the trees to continue growing in height and believed the 'topping' had, in effect, destroyed them.
- Defendant asserted that the trees appeared to be dying and infested with bagworms, and that her actions were beneficial to the trees' health.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in a Kansas trial court for trespass, seeking treble damages under a state statute.
- Defendant filed a general denial in response.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a general verdict for the Defendant.
- The trial court entered judgment against the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a property owner entitled to recover at least nominal damages for an admitted trespass to land, even if no actual injury to the property is proven?
Opinions:
Majority - Wertz, J.
Yes. A property owner is entitled to at least nominal damages for an admitted trespass because from every direct invasion of property, the law infers some damage without proof of actual injury. The court reasoned that a trespass is an invasion of a legally protected interest, which constitutes an injury in and of itself, compensable by at least nominal damages. The right of a property owner to maintain their property as they see fit is paramount. The trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that included the words 'if any' when referring to damages, because this improperly allowed the jury to find zero damages despite the defendant's admission of the trespass. Once a trespass is established, some damage—even if only nominal—results as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the common law principle that the tort of trespass protects the right of exclusive possession, not just the physical condition of the property. The decision establishes that the legal injury is the unauthorized entry itself, making the trespasser liable regardless of their intent or the outcome of their actions. This precedent prevents defendants from escaping liability by claiming their trespass was harmless or even beneficial, ensuring that property owners can always vindicate their right to exclude others. Future cases involving technical trespasses with no provable economic harm will rely on this rule to guarantee at least a nominal recovery for the plaintiff.
