Steenberg sold mobile homes and needed to deliver one to
Jacque's neighbor. The quickest route was across Jacque's property.
Steenberg repeatedly asked Jacques for permission to cross the property,
but Jacque's refused.
Jacque's was mad at their neighbors due to a separate
issue.
It was possible for Steenberg to get around Jacque's
property, but it involved a potentially dangerous and expensive route
over a mountain.
Jacque saw the house being moved and Steenberg's employees
told him that they intended to move it across his property. Jacques
refused to allow it, even after being offered money by Steenberg.
Steenberg moved the house across Jacque's land without his
permission. Jacques called the police who issued a $30 citation to
Steenberg for trespassing. Jacques sued Steenberg.
The Trial Court found for Jacques. Steenberg appealed.
The Court awarded Jacques $1 nominal damages and
$100k in punitive damages.
Steenberg admitted to intentional trespass, but suggested
that there was not enough evidence for punitive or compensatory
damages.
Compensatory damages in tort are generally
awarded to place the claimant in the position he would have been had the
tort not taken place.
Punitive damages are not awarded in order to
compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant
and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which
damaged the plaintiff.
Nominal damages are very small damages awarded to
show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual.
Appellate Court set aside the punitive damage
award. Jacque appealed.
Under Wisconsin law, no punitive damages can be
given unless the jury also awards compensatory damages.
Steenberg had also suggested that $100k was too high,
even if punitive damages were allowable.
Asking to have an excessive award reduced is called a remittitur.
Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and awarded Jacque the
$100k.
Jacque argued that the compensatory damages
requirement is inappropriate when the wrongful act is intentional
trespass to land.
Technically, Steenberg didn't damage Jacque's land at
all.
The actual harm was not the damage to the land, but the
loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his property.
If trespassers didn't have to pay, what's to stop anybody
from trespassing?
If you agree that trespassing is wrong, you have to have
a legal disincentive for doing it.
Wisconsin has a law on the books stating that trespassing
is a crime, and the Wisconsin legislature passed a statute saying that
the maximum fine for trespass is $1k. So how can the Court
approve an award that's 100x as much?
Considering that Jacque's refusal might have resulted in
Steenberg's driver being hurt in an accident, and it would have
substantially increased the delivery costs and injured commerce, was it
reasonable for Jacque to be so intransigent?
If Steenberg had respected Jacque's refusal and used the
dangerous road and the truck turned over and people were hurt, would
Steenberg have a tort claim against Jacque for being unreasonable?
Probably not, but in some cases, maybe.
For example, in a storm, you can tie your boat to any
nearby dock, and the dock owner cannot legally refuse you.
How would this case be different if instead there was a
guy walking down the street and just stepped on Jacque's lawn to get
around a large puddle?
Would it matter that Steenberg was doing it for business
and not for dry feet?
Does society want Jacque to force people to get their
feet wet? Is that a value that society feels needs to be protected?
