Thomas v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp.
734 So. 2d 312 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Common law trespass requires only an intent to enter upon the particular piece of land in question, irrespective of the actor's negligence or belief about their right to enter. A principal is liable for the trespasses of its independent contractor when the commissioned work inherently and foreseeably requires the commission of the trespass.
Facts:
- Harrah's Vicksburg Corporation (Harrah's) planned to construct a casino facility adjacent to property owned by C.N. Thomas and leased to his business, Surplus City U.S.A., Inc. (Surplus).
- After unsuccessful negotiations to purchase Thomas's land, Harrah's funded the City of Vicksburg's eminent domain proceedings against Thomas.
- During the eminent domain litigation, Harrah's hired W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (Yates) to begin building the casino.
- The construction plans required a wall to be built directly on the property line shared with the Thomas/Surplus property.
- From approximately July 1993 to December 1993, Yates's construction activities, including erecting scaffolding, stacking materials, and operating cranes, repeatedly took place on and over the Thomas/Surplus property.
- Representatives for both Harrah's and Yates acknowledged that given the design, trespassing on the adjacent property was necessary and unavoidable to complete the construction.
- Thomas and Surplus repeatedly demanded that Harrah's and Yates cease trespassing, but their requests were ignored.
Procedural Posture:
- C.N. Thomas and Surplus City U.S.A., Inc. initially sued Harrah's and Yates in Warren County Chancery Court seeking an injunction, but the action was transferred to the Warren County Circuit Court to seek damages for common law trespass.
- Following a trial on the merits, a jury returned a verdict finding no liability against Thomas and finding no liability against Surplus as to Harrah's.
- The jury found Yates liable to Surplus and awarded $3,000 in what it termed 'nominal damages'.
- The trial judge, citing the jury's finding of only nominal damages, refused to allow the jury to consider the issue of punitive damages.
- The trial court denied the post-trial motions filed by Thomas and Surplus for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), additur, or a new trial.
- Thomas and Surplus (as appellants) filed a joint appeal to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi against Harrah's and Yates (as appellees).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Mississippi common law, does a physical intrusion onto another's land constitute an actionable trespass if the defendant intended the physical entry, even without proof of negligence or a specific intent to invade the property owner's rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Payne, J.
Yes, a physical intrusion constitutes an actionable trespass if the defendant intended the physical entry, regardless of negligence or knowledge of wrongdoing. Common law trespass is an intrusion upon the land of another without a license or right. The court rejected the defendants' argument that a negligence standard should apply, instead adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts view that the only intent required is the intent to be at the place on the land where the trespass occurred. Uncontroverted testimony from the defendants' own employees established that they knew construction would inevitably require entering the plaintiffs' property. Furthermore, Harrah's is liable for the tortious acts of its independent contractor, Yates, because the work it commissioned—building a wall on the property line—inherently entailed the commission of trespass.
Dissenting in part - McMillin, P.J.
This opinion concurs with holding Harrah's jointly and severally liable for the $3,000 judgment but dissents from remanding the case for consideration of punitive damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it decided, after hearing all the evidence, that the defendants' conduct did not rise to the level of wilful, wanton, reckless, or malicious behavior required to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. The majority fails to make the requisite finding that the trial court abused its discretion and therefore has no authority to remand on an issue that has already been finally adjudicated.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional, strict liability nature of common law trespass in Mississippi, clarifying that the defendant's state of mind regarding property rights is irrelevant; only the intent to physically enter the space matters. It significantly impacts property developers and contractors by holding principals liable for trespasses that are a foreseeable and necessary consequence of their construction designs, even if committed by independent contractors. This prevents principals from insulating themselves from liability by delegating work that inherently involves tortious conduct, thereby encouraging more careful planning and the acquisition of necessary licenses or easements before construction begins near property lines.
Unlock the full brief for Thomas v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp.