Townsend v. Briggs
99 Cal. 481, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 695, 34 P. 116 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner may use reasonably necessary force to expel a trespasser after giving a clear, though not necessarily polite, order to leave. This right is not extinguished merely because the trespasser has momentarily ceased the specific conduct that initiated the trespass.
Facts:
- Briggs was in rightful possession of a workshop containing fruit-pitting machines.
- Townsend entered the shop and began to handle and operate two machines with great and potentially damaging force.
- Attracted by the noise, Briggs entered the room and peremptorily ordered Townsend to let the machines alone and leave the premises.
- Townsend stopped handling the machines but did not leave, and instead exchanged hostile words with Briggs.
- Briggs, who was over 60, weighed 128 pounds, and was in poor health, picked up a mallet and struck Townsend.
- Townsend, who was around 47, weighed 170 pounds, and was in good health, advanced toward Briggs after the first blow, and Briggs struck him again.
- Townsend then fell onto the knife of one of the machines and was seriously injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Townsend sued Briggs in a trial court for personal injuries from an alleged wrongful assault.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Townsend, in the sum of nine thousand dollars, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The defendant, Briggs, made a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Briggs, as appellant, appealed to the state's highest court from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
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 property owner use wrongful force when ejecting a trespasser if the owner's command to leave is impolite and the force is applied after the trespasser has momentarily ceased their destructive actions?
Opinions:
Majority - McFarland, J.
No. A property owner does not use wrongful force merely because his command to leave was impolite or because the trespasser had momentarily ceased their destructive act. A property owner has the right to use all force reasonably necessary to defend their property against an intruder. Townsend became a trespasser the moment he began violently manipulating the machines. Briggs's peremptory order to 'get out of here' was legally sufficient because it plainly told Townsend to go; it did not need to be a polite 'request'. The right to use force arose from Townsend's status as a trespasser, and that right was not lost simply because Townsend was not touching the machines at the exact moment the force was used. The jury instructions suggesting otherwise were erroneous and misleading.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a property owner's right to use force in ejecting a trespasser, establishing two key principles. First, the legal sufficiency of a command to leave hinges on its clarity, not its civility, protecting owners acting under duress. Second, it affirms that the right to eject is based on the intruder's status as a trespasser, not on their continuous engagement in a wrongful act. This precedent strengthens the defense of property doctrine by allowing for a more contextual and realistic assessment of the situation, rather than focusing on the precise moment force was applied.
Unlock the full brief for Townsend v. Briggs