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

Browse Search

34 Wall—"Trespass"in Animal Control Ordinance 2-5-2014 by mistake, believing it to be located on land from which they had bought the timber." Id. at 586. (iv) Scope of Consent Whether consent is express or implied, the scope of consent circumscribes the activities authorized. Sometimes an individual who has authorization to enter onto land commits "subsequent wrongful acts in excess or abuse of his authority to enter" and thereby becomes a trespasser. Blackwood v. Cates, 297 N.C. 163, 167 (1979). In Blackwood, for example, the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the defendant was liable for trespass where he had implied authorization to enter a home but upon entry caused the plaintiff to be falsely arrested. The Court noted that the defendant's liability was the result of this "later wrongdoing." Id. See also Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 660 (1973) ("One who enters upon the land of another with the consent of the possessor may, by his subsequent wrongful act in excess or abuse of his authority to enter, become liable in damages as a trespasser.");Freeman v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 205 N.C. 257 (1933) ("it is the law of this jurisdiction that although an entry on lands may be effected . . .with permission of the owner, yet if, after going upon the premises of another, the defendant . . . commits such acts as are reasonably calculated to intimidate or lead to a breach of the peace, he would be liable for trespass"). If, for example, the person who entered his neighbor's fenced property to borrow something which he had permission to borrow proceeded to traipse around areas of the property which he had not been authorized to enter, he may become a trespasser despite the fact that his initial entry was authorized if he had reason to know he had exceeded the scope of his authorization. In Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S. Associates Realty, Inc., 464 N.E.2d 169, 171 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983), the trial court denied the plaintiff recovery for injuries she sustained in the backyard of the defendants' house. The plaintiff was inspecting the defendants' house, which was for sale, with a real estate agent when she entered the backyard, encountered the defendants' large dog, and fell breaking her wrist. The defendants had expressly prohibited potential buyers from entering the backyard unless accompanied, and, thus, the trial court found that "[plaintiff] was a trespasser at the time of her canine encounter." Id. The appellate court disagreed and found that, while a land occupier can "expressly limit"the scope of an invitation to enter land, because such limitation was not communicated to the plaintiff, she was not a trespasser at the time of her injury and was entitled to recover damages. V. Conclusions Regarding Civil Trespass The preceding discussion reveals certain guidelines which may be useful to an individual tasked with evaluating a dog bite case under the draft Unified Ordinance in its current form. If the decision to declare a dog a vicious animal hinges upon a determination of the status of an injured individual as a"willful trespasser,"without any further explanation within the Ordinance of the term, case law from across the country suggests that the term describes a trespass that is 12