Agenda - 04-08-2014 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

25 Wall—"Trespass"in Animal Control Ordinance 2-5-2014 of the rights of another,"but North Carolina law has long recognized that the "more natural and usual meaning" of the term trespass is "restricted to unlawful acts done to the person or property of another." Brown v. Walker, 188 N.C. 52 (1924). It is probably reasonable, for purposes of the Unified Ordinance, to further restrict the interpretation of the term "trespass," to trespasses against real property because the other common forms of trespass, those to personal property and to persons, tend to be criminal offenses as well as other specifically identified torts. See e.g., Fowler, 334 N.C. at 349 (noting that the torts of assault and false imprisonment, each of which is also a crime in North Carolina, fall within the "umbrella" of trespass). The Unified Ordinance provides a separate exception for dogs inflicting injury to individuals committing or attempting to commit crimes, as well as catchall language referring to "other tort[s]," and these separate exceptions may be better suited to handling forms of trespass other than trespasses to real property.2 Another area of tort law where the concept of trespass frequently arises is that of premises liability for injuries to others occurring on a land occupier's property. Largely, the definitions of trespass in the law of premises liability and in the law of the trespass tort overlap. A person who commits the tort of trespass to real property such that she may be liable to an occupier of the property for damages would, with narrow exception, typically be considered a trespasser under the law of premises liability. See 2 DAN B. DOBBS ET AL.,THE LAW of TORTS 68 (2d ed.2011) (explaining that historically the"trespassers category . . . included all those who might be sued for trespass") [hereinafter DOBBS]. While this notion is perhaps obvious,it is important to note because the bodies of law often do not look to each other for guidance, and the cases in each area tend to focus on different issues. The conceptual similarity between premises liability legal theory and the policy considerations which likely underlie the trespasser exception in the Unified Ordinance provides further support for the proposition that the trespass exception in the Unified Ordinance is likely meant to be understood as applying to trespasses to real property rather than other forms of trespass. The general theory of premises liability law is that the standard of care owed by a landowner to others to prevent injuries from occurring on her property varies depending on whether the injured person has permission to be at the place where he is injured. See Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615 (1998) (discussing the historical development of and modern trends in premises liability law). This idea seems to comport with the likely justification for the trespass exception. 2 For examples of the broad circumstances implicated by interpreting the willful trespass exception as encompassing trespasses other than those to real property, see Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corp.,210 N.C. 808 (193 6)(characterizing a civil action for damages for a miscarriage allegedly caused by defendant's frightening and profane admonishment of plaintiff regarding a debt as a"willful trespass to the person"), and Meibus v. Dodge,38 Wis. 300,306(1875) (defendant argued that an"act of trespass upon the defendant's sleigh [parked on a public street and guarded by a dog]...by interfering with the property...would protect the defendant from liability"where a child was bitten by the dog). 3