TortsPropertytrespassintentional tortsnominal damagestrespass to landunauthorized entrynominal damages
Facts
The defendant entered land claimed by the plaintiff and made a survey, including marking trees or at least entering for that purpose. The land was not described as under cultivation or enclosed. The defendant appears to have acted under a claimed right of ownership, but the court characterized that claim as unfounded. There was no indication of adverse possession displacing the owner's possessory right.
Issue
Whether a willful but unauthorized entry onto another's land, made under an unfounded claim of right and without substantial physical injury, constitutes trespass sufficient to allow recovery. The case also asks whether at least nominal damages are inferred from such an entry.
Rule
Every unauthorized and therefore unlawful entry into the close of another is a trespass. From every such entry against the will of the possessor, the law infers some damage, even if only slight injury such as trampling grass, herbage, or shrubbery. If there is no adverse possession, title makes the land the owner's close, and the entry itself constitutes the trespass.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Asheville, North Carolina, Lena Ortiz holds title to a wooded parcel that is neither fenced nor farmed, and no one else is occupying it. Without asking permission, Grant Pell walks onto the parcel for ten minutes to inspect the terrain for a possible future purchase and leaves without cutting, digging, or removing anything.
If Lena sues Grant for trespass, which is the strongest argument for Lena under the governing rule?
Explanation. The rule is that every unauthorized entry into the close of another is a trespass. The entry itself constitutes the wrong, and the law infers some damage from the invasion even if no substantial physical injury is shown. The fact that the land is unenclosed or uncultivated does not defeat the claim where no adverse possession exists and title makes it the owner's close. (Derived from Dougherty v. Stepp (1835).)