Scribd
Upload
87 views1 page

Jacque v. Stenberg Homes, Inc. (1997) - Trespass

An elderly couple refused permission for a mobile home company to cross their land multiple times to deliver a home to neighbors. On the delivery day, the assistant manager told employees to cross the land anyway. The couple sued for trespass. While there were no actual damages, the court held punitive damages were appropriate for intentional trespass to deter future violations and protect landowners' rights to exclude others, even without compensatory damages. The mobile home company's actions in crossing after being unequivocally denied were egregious enough to warrant punitive damages.

Uploaded by

Eszle Ann L. Chua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
87 views1 page

Jacque v. Stenberg Homes, Inc. (1997) - Trespass

An elderly couple refused permission for a mobile home company to cross their land multiple times to deliver a home to neighbors. On the delivery day, the assistant manager told employees to cross the land anyway. The couple sued for trespass. While there were no actual damages, the court held punitive damages were appropriate for intentional trespass to deter future violations and protect landowners' rights to exclude others, even without compensatory damages. The mobile home company's actions in crossing after being unequivocally denied were egregious enough to warrant punitive damages.

Uploaded by

Eszle Ann L. Chua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Jacque v. Stenberg Homes, Inc.

(1997) - Trespass

Brief Fact Summary. of the Facts: In order to deliver a mobile home, SteenBerg Homes went
across the Jacque’s property without permission

Synopsis of Rule of Law. When nominal damages are awarded for an intentional trespass to land
punitive damages may also be awarded.

Facts. Plaintiffs Lois and Harvey Jacques, an elderly couple, are very sensitive about people being
on their land. The Jacque’s neighbors purchased a mobile home from the defendant SteenBerg
Homes. SteenBerg tried on several occasions to get permission from the Jacques to cross their land
because this was the easiest way to deliver the mobile home and they refused. On the day of
delivery SteenBerg employees made an attempt to cross the land and were stopped by the Jacques.
The SteenBerg assistant manager attempting bargaining for the right to cross and they again
refused. The assistant manager subsequently told his employees “I don’t give a—— what Mr.
Jacque said just get the home in there any way you can.” The employees followed that order and
delivered the home across the Jacque’s property.

Issue. Whether punitive damages may be awarded in an intentional trespass case when the Plaintiff
are only entitled to nominal damages because there is no actual harm to their property.

Held. Yes. Punitive damages are appropriate in intentional trespass cases even if there are no actual
damages. The purpose of the punitive damage in this case is deterrence. Landowners have an
interest in protecting his or her land from trespass and the United States Supreme Court has held
that the right to exclude others from his or her land is one of the most essential […] property rights.
If landowners are only allowed compensation for trespass actions that have compensatory damages
it makes that right a hollow one. It does not take actual harm to a person’s property for actual
harm to occur when someone intentional trespasses upon that land. An award will not be
considered excessive in violation of the Due Process clause when the acts are egregious. Here,
SteenBerg was unequivocally told no, and still continued on the land. That disregard for the
Jacque’s rights amounts to that egregious conduct.

Discussion. Yes. Punitive damages are appropriate in intentional trespass cases even if there are
no actual damages. The purpose of the punitive damage in this case is deterrence. Landowners
have an interest in protecting his or her land from trespass and the United States Supreme Court
has held that the right to exclude others from his or her land is one of the most essential […]
property rights. If landowners are only allowed compensation for trespass actions that have
compensatory damages it makes that right a hollow one. It does not take actual harm to a person’s
property for actual harm to occur when someone intentional trespasses upon that land. An award
will not be considered excessive in violation of the Due Process clause when the acts are egregious.
Here, SteenBerg was unequivocally told no, and still continued on the land. That disregard for the
Jacque’s rights amounts to that egregious conduct.

You might also like