Ruiz v. Forman
514 S.W.2d 817, 1974 Tex. App. LEXIS 2661 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is liable for trespass and resulting damages if they intentionally commit a physical act that results in an entry onto another's land, even if the entry itself was not intended, the actor was not negligent, and the act was necessary to avoid harm.
Facts:
- Armando Ruiz was driving his car westerly on Alameda Street.
- A truck driving just ahead of Ruiz suddenly swerved into his lane of traffic.
- To avoid a collision with the truck, Ruiz 'consciously and intentionally turned his wheels to the right'.
- As a result, Ruiz's car left the road, he lost control on the gravel shoulder, and his vehicle went onto property leased by Roy L. Forman, striking a sign and other property.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy L. Forman sued Armando Ruiz in a Texas trial court for property damage, alleging both negligence and trespass.
- Following a trial, a jury found that Ruiz was not negligent but determined that Forman had suffered damages of $270.00.
- Forman filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (judgment notwithstanding the verdict), arguing that the evidence showed Ruiz committed an intentional trespass as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Forman's motion and entered a judgment holding Ruiz liable for the damages.
- Ruiz, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
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 person commit a liable trespass when they intentionally perform an act, such as swerving a car to avoid a collision, that results in an unintended and non-negligent entry onto another's land, causing damage?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
Yes. A person is liable for trespass if they intended the act which resulted in the invasion of another's property, even if they did not intend to invade the property or cause the resulting damages. The court distinguished this case from situations involving involuntary acts, such as a driver losing consciousness from a heart attack. Here, Armando Ruiz intentionally turned his steering wheel. This intentional act directly caused the invasion of Roy L. Forman's property. Citing Texas Supreme Court precedent in Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Vowell Construction Company, the court affirmed that the intent required for trespass is the intent to do the act that causes the invasion, not the intent to invade the property itself. Therefore, even though Ruiz was not negligent and acted out of necessity, his intentional act of swerving makes him liable for the damages caused by the resulting trespass.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict liability standard for the tort of trespass in Texas. It clarifies that the requisite intent is for the physical act causing the intrusion, not for the intrusion itself. This lowers the bar for proving trespass compared to negligence, as the plaintiff does not need to show fault or a lack of reasonable care. The ruling reinforces that even a justifiable or necessary act that results in an invasion of another's property rights can create liability, shifting the financial burden of the resulting harm to the actor who saved themselves at the property owner's expense.
Unlock the full brief for Ruiz v. Forman