Opinion ID: 2165574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is proof of actual harm required to state a claim for an Intentional trespass?

Text: To the first question for certification, Is proof of actual harm required to state a claim for intentional trespass?, we must answer No. Property owners are traditionally afforded far-reaching legal protections in the exclusive use and enjoyment of their land. 6-A AMERICAN LAW OF PROPERTY § 28.1 (A.J. Casner ed.1954). Any intended intrusion or encroachment which is not privileged is actionable without regard for the shortness of the period of the interference, or the absence of pecuniary harm. Id. Kentucky follows the common law. In Fletcher v. Howard, 226 Ky. 258, 10 S.W.2d 825 (1928) overruled in part by Cissell v. Grimes Investments, Inc., 383 S.W.2d 128 (Ky.1964), [2] the Court dealt with an intentional trespass where the evidence on actual damages was speculative or vague. Our predecessor, the Court of Appeals, opined that when [t]he evidence was vague as to the amount of damage, but where a trespass has been committed upon the property of another, he is entitled at least to nominal damages for the violation of his rights. Id. at 260, 10 S.W.2d at 826-27. By 1950, in the case of Hughett v. Caldwell, 313 Ky. 85, 230 S.W.2d 92 (1950), the then Court of Appeals, in discussing the difference between an intentional and innocent trespass, recognized [i]t is the universal inference of the law that every unauthorized entry upon the land of another person results in some damages, though it may be nominal. Id. at 90, 230 S.W.2d at 96 (emphasis added). In the case of Randall v. Shelton, 293 S.W.2d 559, 562 (Ky.1956), the Court set forth the three situations where an interference with property will support an award of damages in Kentucky: intentional trespass; extra-hazardous activity; and negligent trespass that causes a harm or injury. Ellison v. R & B Contracting, Inc., 32 S.W.3d 66 (Ky.2000), provided this Court with an opportunity to revisit the law of trespass to real property. The jury found the trespass was intentional. Although the case focused on the proper damages for trespass, the Court reaffirmed the traditional law of trespass, even if the plaintiff suffered no actual damages as a result of the trespass, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. Id. at 71. However, in intentional trespass, in order to recover more than nominal damages, a property owner must prove actual injury, which we shall discuss further below. Hughett, 313 Ky. at 90, 230 S.W.2d at 95.