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

Browse Search

26 Wall—"Trespass"in Animal Control Ordinance 2-5-2014 As email correspondence identified, trespass to real property encompasses a broad range of actions including behaviors that are relatively innocent. See e.g., 2 DOBBs at 69 ("[T]respassers could be quite different one from another. One might be a burglar...another might be...a neighbor who takes an uninvited shortcut across the lawn."). The North Carolina Supreme Court has stated that "every unauthorized entry on land in the peaceable possession of another constitutes a trespass, without regard to the degree of force used and irrespective of whether actual damage is done." Matthews v. Forrest, 235 N.C. 281, 283 (1952). It is common to find the elements of an actionable trespass to real property identified in case law as (1)possession of the property by the plaintiff when the alleged trespass was committed;3 (2) an unauthorized entry by the defendant; and (3) damage to the plaintiff from the trespass. See Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 20, 32 (2003); Singleton v. Haywood Elec. Membership Corp., 357 N.C. 623, 627 (2003). A relatively similar definition is offered in premises liability cases where it is often stated that "[a] trespasser is one who enters the land of another without permission." Hoots v. Pryor, 106 N.C. App. 397, 407 (1992). For purposes of analyzing and interpreting the Unified Ordinance, the common factor between the definitions —an entry which is unauthorized—is likely the most important to consider.4 IV. State of Mind The Unified Ordinance, by its use of the phrase "willful trespass," may set a higher standard for the degree of culpability of the state of mind of a potential trespasser than that required under traditional tort law. A question arises as to why the Unified Ordinance (or the General Statutes which contain the same language)would join the term "willful"with "trespass"unless some degree of culpability greater than that of the traditional tort was intended. Were this not the intent of the Ordinance, the exception could be written to apply to individuals committing any tort without need to specifically identify trespass as among those torts covered. While the term "willful trespass"is not uncommon in tort law, its precise definition is elusive. See e.g., Wood v. Weaver, 92 S.E. 1001, 1004 (Va. 1917) ("The legal meaning of the word `willful' in [trespass law] is a technical one, which the courts and text-writers have found it impossible to define in set terms which will fit every case."; "the act which constitutes a willful 3 Throughout this document the individual who is aggrieved by a trespasser is referred to by various terms including landowner and land occupier. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party actually own the land or premises in question. Control of the land under right,by a tenant for example,is sufficient to bring a trespass action. 4 With regard to the other elements identified by the trespass tort definition,possession by the plaintiff will probably be relatively easy to ascertain and damage is presumed when the first two elements are proved. See Whitley v. Jones,238 N.C. 332,336(1953)(explaining that every unauthorized entry constituting a trespass entitles the aggrieved parry to "at least nominal damages"). Likewise,in premises liability cases the issue of possession tends to be relatively binary, and damages caused by the trespass are not considered as the issue in contention tends to be recovery for damages caused to the trespasser. 4