Baker v. Shymkiv

Supreme Court of Ohio · Torts

TortsTrespassDamagesForeseeabilityEmotional Distressintentional trespassforeseeabilitydamages

Facts

The only factual matter discussed in the opinion is that the case involved an intentional trespass and a jury instruction limiting liability to foreseeable damages. The Shymkivs argued that the trial court properly charged the jury on foreseeability. They also argued against affirmance on the ground that the court of appeals appeared to be creating an exception to Ohio's former rule barring recovery for mental distress without contemporaneous physical injury. The opinion addresses the proper scope of liability for an intentional trespasser.

Issue

Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that only foreseeable damages could result in liability in a case involving an intentional trespasser? More specifically, must damages caused by an intentional trespasser be foreseeable to be compensable?

Rule

Damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable. Intentional trespassers are treated as less-favored wrongdoers and incur liability for harm caused during the continuance of the trespass irrespective of whether the conduct would subject them to liability if it occurred elsewhere.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Olivia Kent deliberately cuts across Noah Price's fenced backyard after Noah told her to stay off the property. While on the yard, Olivia carelessly swings a metal gate closed, and the gate rebounds in an unusual way, breaking Noah's wrist as he walks outside. Olivia argues the rebound was a bizarre accident no reasonable person could have anticipated.

If Noah sues for trespass and resulting injury, which is the best statement of Olivia's liability for the broken wrist?

Explanation. The majority held that damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable. Relying on Restatement §§ 158 and 162, the court treated intentional trespassers as less-favored wrongdoers and imposed liability for harm caused by acts done during the continuance of the trespass, irrespective of ordinary foreseeability limits.