Hubbry Logo
TrespasserTrespasserMain
Open search
Trespasser
Community hub
Trespasser
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Trespasser
Trespasser
Trespasser
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia


Part of the common law series
Tort law
(Outline)
Trespass to the person
Property torts
Dignitary torts
Negligent torts
Principles of negligence
Strict and absolute liability
Nuisance
Economic torts
Defences
Liability
Legal remedy
Other topics in tort law
By jurisdiction
Other common law areas
"Trespassers will be shot" sign in Putnam County, Tennessee
Look up trespasser in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

In the law of tort, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who commits the act of trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. Being present on land as a trespasser thereto creates liability in the trespasser, so long as the trespass is intentional. At the same time, the status of a visitor as a trespasser (as opposed to an invitee or a licensee) defines the legal rights of the visitor if they are injured due to the negligence of the property owner.

Trespassing as a tort

[edit]

The tort of trespass to land requires an intentional physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property by the defendant or a refusal to leave when ordered to leave.

Intent required

[edit]

For example, a person walking in a public park who trips and rolls down a hill will not be liable for trespass just because the bottom of the hill is on private land.

Physical invasion

[edit]

The trespasser need not enter the land in person. Indeed, if A and B are standing next to C's land, and A pushes B onto the land without entering it himself, it is A (and not B, who did not intend to enter that space) who is liable for the trespass to C's land. There must be some physical entry, however. Causing noise, light, odors, or smoke to enter the land of another is not a trespass, but is instead a different tort, nuisance.

For purposes of determining liability, the landowner's property rights extend above and below the land to as much distance as the landowner can beneficially use. Even a low-flying plane can trespass if it enters this usable space.[citation needed]

Constructive trespass

[edit]

A constructive trespass occurs when a person who has permission to be on the land overstays their welcome. A person who stays in a business after its closing time, or who goes to a dinner party but refuses to leave long after the other guests have gone home, is a trespasser despite their initially proper presence. Furthermore, a guest's status as a trespasser arises as soon as they resist when the property owner tells them to leave the property. This is not a constructive trespass if the guest is unconscious.

Duties owed to trespassers

[edit]

As a broad general rule, property owners owe few duties to trespassers to safeguard them from injuries that may occur on their property.

With respect to the duties owed to trespassers, there are two types of trespassers to consider:

  • The undiscovered trespasser, to whom the property owner owes only a duty not to "trap" or wilfully harm the trespasser.
  • The anticipated or discovered trespasser. To those parties, the landowner owes a duty of common humanity (See British Railways Board v. Herrington)—a duty to warn them of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to them, but of which the property owner is aware.

For injury claims by trespassers, the concept of traps was narrowly defined. More recently, courts in some jurisdictions have engaged in some creativity, adopting a broader interpretation of a trap.

A warning sign at the entrance to the land is generally sufficient to warn trespassers of possible hazards on a property or land. However, a property owner is under no duty to ascertain hazards on his property for the benefit of trespassers, and cannot be held liable for failing to discover a previously unknown hazard that injures a trespasser.

In some jurisdictions an adult trespasser who is injured while on a defendant's property cannot sue under a theory of strict liability, even if the landowner was engaged in ultrahazardous activities, such as the keeping of wild animals, or the use of explosives. Instead, the trespasser must prove that the property owner intentionally or wantonly injured the plaintiff to recover.

Some jurisdictions extend additional protections to children who trespass on the properly of others. For example, if there is a potentially hazardous object or condition on the land that might be attractive to young children, the trespass may be deemed "anticipated" under the doctrine of attractive nuisance such that the child may be able to succeed with an injury claim.

In some regions of the world, a property owner may use reasonable (typically meaning non-deadly) force to prevent a person from trespassing on their land, or to expel a trespasser.[1] However, a property owner may be restricted from expelling a trespasser if doing so would expose the trespasser to a risk of serious injury. For example, a trespasser who takes shelter in a stranger's barn during a powerful storm cannot be expelled until the storm is over.

United States

[edit]

Many jurisdictions within the United States have passed statutes to modify or clarify the common law duties owed by a property owner to a trespasser (for example, by explicitly permitting the property owner to use deadly force to expel trespassers).[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Trespasser

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Trespasser is a 1998 action-adventure video game developed by DreamWorks Interactive and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows, serving as a non-canon sequel to the Jurassic Park franchise set on Isla Sorna, the dinosaur breeding site known as Site B. The player assumes the role of Anne Moody, a researcher who survives a plane crash on the island with a fractured arm, relying on puzzle-solving, environmental interaction, and evasion of dinosaurs such as raptors and T. rex to escape while gathering intelligence on InGen's abandoned facilities. Trespasser pioneered a rigid-body physics engine in video games, enabling unscripted object manipulation, ragdoll effects, and dinosaur movements governed by simulated mass and momentum rather than predefined animations, which represented a significant technical advancement for open-world simulation at the time. Despite its innovations, the game drew substantial criticism for its clunky controls—such as requiring players to swing a virtual arm to aim and look around—and persistent bugs including failures and unreliable AI, contributing to its reputation as an ambitious but commercially unsuccessful title that sold poorly upon release on , 1998.

Definition and Elements

A is defined as a who enters or remains on the real property of another without the owner's or possessor's , , or legal privilege. This status arises in both criminal and civil contexts, particularly under principles governing property rights and premises liability. The core elements include an actual intrusion onto the land, which may be physical entry by the or by an object under their control, and the absence of any express or implied permission. In tort law, the act of trespassing to requires intentional conduct, meaning the trespasser must have intended the entry or the act causing entry, though not necessarily knowledge that the property belongs to another or awareness of boundary lines. For instance, mistaken belief in does not negate the intent element if the entry was voluntary. This intentionality distinguishes trespass from mere , emphasizing the trespasser's volitional act over accidental presence. The definition excludes those with legal rights, such as holders or public access under by necessity, who are not classified as trespassers despite physical presence on the . Jurisdictions may vary slightly, but the foundational rule prioritizes the property owner's exclusive possessory interest, rendering unauthorized entrants liable for any direct interference, even without .

Intent and Types of Intrusion

Trespass to land constitutes an requiring the defendant's voluntary act of entering or causing entry onto another's without authorization. The requisite pertains solely to the act of intrusion itself, not to any malicious purpose, of boundaries, or awareness that the land belongs to another. For instance, a person who deliberately crosses a boundary line under the mistaken belief that it is or their own still satisfies the element, as the focus is on the purposeful physical act rather than . This intent standard derives from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158, which imposes liability for intentional intrusions regardless of harm, emphasizing the defendant's volitional conduct in directing their body or a tangible object onto the . Accidental or involuntary entries, such as those resulting from being pushed or carried onto the without agency, do not qualify, as they lack the necessary deliberate action. In practice, courts have upheld claims where defendants intentionally traversed for benign reasons, like shortcutting, without intending disrespect to ownership rights. Types of intrusion encompass both direct and indirect forms. Direct intrusion occurs when the personally enters the , such as walking across a , climbing a , or entering an enclosed without consent. Indirect intrusion involves the intentionally causing a , substance, or third-party agent to enter the , including throwing , directing projectiles, or diverting onto the . Additionally, a continuing trespass arises from remaining on the land after permission has been revoked or expires, transforming an initially lawful presence into an unauthorized one. Examples include a former who refuses to depart upon demand or a who overstays posted hunting hours on private acreage. No actual damage or interference with use is required for liability; the unauthorized entry alone suffices to establish the , though nominal may be awarded absent provable harm.

Historical Foundations

English Common Law Origins

The action of , including to , emerged in English during the mid- as the royal courts expanded jurisdiction over personal and property wrongs not adequately addressed by earlier possessory assizes like novel disseisin, which dated to 1166. This development reflected the centralization of justice under Henry III, where of vi et armis authorized remedies for direct, forcible injuries alleged to breach the king's peace, initially requiring proof of violence or arms in the intrusion. For specifically, the quare clausum fregit ("trespass because he broke the close") became a standard form by the late , protecting the possessor's exclusive right against unauthorized physical entry, even if initially tied to forcible acts like breaking enclosures. Early cases, recorded in plea rolls from the 1260s onward, illustrate as a for intentional intrusions without consent, distinguishing it from mere disputes over or possession. The entrant was deemed a trespasser if lacking express or implied , with liability attaching regardless of damage caused, underscoring the common law's emphasis on the causal breach of the property boundary as the core wrong. Over the , the requirement of force attenuated; peaceful but unpermitted entries sufficed, as seen in Year Book reports where mere presence on another's close without right triggered liability, solidifying the trespasser's status as an interloper forfeiting claims to lawful occupancy. The term "trespasser" itself, denoting one who commits such an entry, entered English legal parlance by 1362, derived from trespasser meaning to pass across or transgress boundaries. This evolution prioritized the landowner's possessory interest over the intruder's intent or necessity, with remedies focused on or ejection rather than criminal sanction unless violence escalated to . By the , the doctrine was entrenched, influencing duties owed: possessors generally faced no affirmative obligation to warn or protect trespassers, only refraining from intentional harm post-discovery.

American Adaptations and Early Cases

American courts inherited the English rule limiting landowner liability to trespassers, adapting it to emphasize robust property rights rooted in principles rather than feudal tenure systems. Under this framework, landowners owed trespassers no affirmative to maintain safe conditions or warn of hidden dangers, as the trespasser's unauthorized entry negated any expectation of safety; liability arose only for willful or wanton after the trespasser's discovery. A foundational American articulation appeared in Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad Co., decided by the in 1865. The , trespassing on unenclosed railroad at night to take a shortcut, fell into an unguarded excavation and sustained injuries. The court held that the railroad owed no duty to protect the trespasser from ordinary , as "the unspoken of the marketplace" did not extend solicitude to those entering without permission; the entrant assumed the risks of the . This decision entrenched the tripartite entrant —distinguishing trespassers from licensees and invitees—while reinforcing that trespassers bore the peril of their intrusion. Subsequent early cases upheld this minimal-duty standard, with courts rejecting claims for mere absent landowner intent to harm. For instance, in railroad contexts, where trespassing along tracks was common, decisions like those preceding (1938) affirmed no general to such entrants, prioritizing operational efficiency over intruder safety. Adaptations remained conservative, diverging from English precedents mainly by invoking American constitutional protections for without expanding liabilities, though exceptions began emerging for child trespassers by the 1870s.

Classification and Status Distinctions

Comparison with Invitees and Licensees

In traditional American premises liability law, derived from English common law, the status of a visitor on another's property—classified as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser—determines the scope of the landowner's duty of care, with invitees receiving the highest protection and trespassers the lowest. An invitee enters for a purpose that benefits the landowner, such as a customer in a store or public visitor to a facility, entitling them to a duty of reasonable care, including the obligation to inspect the premises for hazards, repair or warn of discoverable dangers, and maintain safe conditions. In contrast, a licensee, such as a social guest permitted to enter for their own purposes, triggers a lesser duty: the landowner must warn of known hidden perils but has no affirmative obligation to inspect or remedy conditions. Trespassers, entering without permission or privilege, occupy the lowest tier, where landowners owe only a minimal to avoid willful, wanton, or intentionally harmful conduct, such as setting traps or failing to prevent foreseeable from artificial hazards once aware of the trespasser's presence. Unlike invitees or licensees, trespassers assume the risks of the as they find them, with no entitlement to warnings about latent defects or routine maintenance failures. This distinction reflects the rationale that invitees confer economic or public benefit justifying proactive safeguards, while licensees imply bare tolerance and trespassers impose no reliance interest on the owner.
Visitor StatusDefinitionDuty Owed by Landowner
InviteeEnters with express or implied invitation for mutual benefit (e.g., business patron).Reasonable care to inspect, warn of hidden dangers, and make premises safe; liability for foreseeable harms from .
LicenseeEnters with permission but for personal convenience (e.g., social guest); consent may be revoked if scope exceeded.Warning of known, non-obvious dangers; no duty to inspect or repair.
TrespasserEnters without or exceeds permitted bounds, becoming a trespasser upon deviation.Refrain from willful or wanton acts; no general or maintain.
While the tripartite classification persists in many jurisdictions, some states have abolished or modified it in favor of a uniform reasonable care standard applied to all entrants, irrespective of status, to simplify analysis and promote equity—though this trend remains minority and varies by state, as in California's adoption of general principles in Rowland v. Christian (1968). Status can shift dynamically: a exceeding consent's scope or an invitee straying into unauthorized areas becomes a trespasser, reducing protections accordingly. These distinctions underscore property owners' incentives to control access, as higher duties correlate with invited presence rather than unconsented intrusion.

Child Trespassers and Attractive Nuisance

Child trespassers receive a higher duty of care from landowners than adult trespassers, reflecting children's generally impaired judgment and inability to fully comprehend or avoid property hazards. Landowners must avoid willful or wanton injury to such children and, if the child's presence is discovered or anticipated, exercise reasonable care to warn of or safeguard against known artificial dangers, such as hazardous machinery whose risks are not obvious to youthful intruders. This obligation arises from foreseeability of immature trespassers in areas where children commonly play or explore, though it does not extend to natural conditions or unforeseeable intrusions. The supplements this framework by holding landowners liable for injuries to undiscovered child trespassers drawn to artificial hazards posing unreasonable risks, effectively elevating the duty to one comparable to that owed invitees for those specific conditions. First articulated by the U.S. in Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout on May 26, 1873, the doctrine stemmed from a case where a six-year-old crushed his hand in an unguarded, unlocked railroad turntable left accessible near a public area, establishing liability where the owner knew or should have known of likely child trespass and failed to secure the peril despite low remedial cost. Initially termed the "turntable doctrine," it expanded principles to account for children's predictable curiosity toward enticing yet dangerous instrumentalities, diverging from the minimal protections afforded adult trespassers under traditional rules. Application requires satisfaction of the elements outlined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339:
  • The possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to upon the land.
  • The possessor maintains an artificial condition upon the land that involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to such children.
  • The children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in trespassing upon it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it.
  • The utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to children involved.
  • The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
The doctrine applies selectively to conditions like unsecured machinery, abandoned vehicles, or poorly maintained junkyards that foreseeably lure children, but excludes natural features such as ponds or common structures like fences unless they conceal exceptional hazards. Courts emphasize the artificial nature of the nuisance and the child's age-typically under 14 or incapable of appreciating risks-while rejecting claims for older adolescents presumed able to recognize dangers. Though widely adopted in U.S. jurisdictions, its scope has faced curtailment in some states via statutes reinforcing for trespassers, including children, absent intentional harm.

Duties and Liabilities

Minimal Duty Under Traditional Rule

Under traditional , a possessor of land owed trespassers only a minimal , limited to refraining from intentionally, willfully, or wantonly injuring them or maintaining a hidden engine of destruction likely to cause harm. This applied particularly to undiscovered trespassers, for whom no affirmative existed to inspect the , repair defects, or warn of natural or artificial hazards, as the trespasser's unauthorized entry negated any expectation of safety. For discovered trespassers—those known to be on the —the extended slightly to exercising reasonable care in conducting active operations to avoid immediate harm, but still excluded liability for passive conditions unless they posed a concealed peril of which the possessor had actual . Courts enforced this restraint to protect , recognizing that imposing broader duties would incentivize possessors to monitor intrusions excessively or deter , as trespassers assumed risks by entering without permission. Exceptions arose only for willful , such as setting traps specifically targeting trespassers, which violated the rule against affirmative harm; passive , like failing to light stairs, did not trigger liability absent or recklessness. This framework, rooted in 19th-century English precedents and adopted in early American cases, prioritized possessor autonomy over intruder protection, with liability confined to egregious acts rather than ordinary carelessness.

Liability for Willful or Wanton Acts

Under traditional principles governing premises , landowners owe trespassers no affirmative duty to maintain conditions or warn of hidden dangers, but they remain liable for injuries resulting from willful or wanton acts directed toward the trespasser. This exception recognizes that while trespassers assume the risk of ordinary hazards on unauthorized entry, property owners cannot actively exploit or recklessly endanger them without consequence. Willful misconduct entails intentional conduct where the landowner either desires to cause or possesses actual that is substantially certain to occur, such as deliberately setting a trap to injure known intruders. Wanton misconduct, by contrast, involves a reckless indifference to the trespasser's safety, characterized by conscious disregard of a known high of , exceeding mere or inadvertence. Courts distinguish these from gross , which some jurisdictions treat separately but often overlaps with wanton acts in trespasser cases; for instance, knowingly operating dangerous machinery in an area frequented by trespassers without precautions may qualify as wanton if the is obvious and ignored. Liability under this standard requires proof of the landowner's actual awareness of the trespasser's presence or highly probable intrusion, coupled with subsequent egregious conduct; passive conditions like structural defects rarely trigger it absent intent or recklessness. In Julian v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. (1934), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that recovery for trespasser injuries hinges on willful or wanton injury, rejecting claims based solely on negligence. Statutory codifications, such as Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §75.002 (enacted 1987, amended periodically), explicitly shield landowners from trespasser suits except for willful, wanton, or grossly negligent acts, reflecting a policy prioritizing property rights over uninvited entrants. Some states extend to discovered trespassers under a standard, but the willful or wanton threshold persists for undiscovered ones, ensuring owners face accountability only for morally culpable behavior rather than routine property maintenance failures. This framework balances deterrence of malicious acts against the disincentive of broad duties that could encumber , as evidenced by recreational use statutes in over 50 U.S. jurisdictions that reinforce immunity absent such conduct.

Defenses and Owner Protections

Use of Reasonable

Property owners hold a privilege under to use reasonable non-deadly to prevent a trespasser's entry onto their or to eject an existing trespasser after demanding departure. This authority stems from the right to exclusive possession, allowing proportionate to the intrusion and necessary to restore control, but only after verbal warning unless immediate harm is imminent. Reasonableness is assessed objectively based on the circumstances, including the trespasser's conduct and any posed; mere presence without limits to minimal physical ejection, such as pushing or restraining, while escalating resistance may justify greater measures short of lethality. Excessive , such as causing serious injury without justification, exposes the owner to civil liability for battery or criminal charges, as the privilege does not extend to punitive excess. In residential settings, the expands protections, authorizing against unlawful entrants if the owner reasonably believes it necessary to prevent imminent , serious , or certain felonies like , without a . As of 2023, over 30 U.S. states codify variations of this doctrine, often limiting to dwellings or and requiring no provocation by the defender. For non-residential property, remains impermissible absent a direct personal threat, preserving the traditional boundary between property defense and .

Statutory Immunities and Limitations

Numerous U.S. states have enacted statutes that codify or expand limitations on landowner liability to trespassers, emphasizing minimal duties and broad immunities to encourage use without fear of suits. These provisions typically affirm that owners owe no duty to maintain safe conditions for trespassers or warn of known dangers, except in cases of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct intentionally harming the intruder. Recreational use statutes, adopted by all 50 states since the , represent a primary form of statutory immunity, designed to promote access to private land for activities like , , , and by shielding owners from liability for injuries to recreational users who enter without permission or fee. Under these laws, such users—often functionally trespassers—are treated as bearing the risk of injury from natural or artificial conditions, with immunity extending unless the owner engages in willful or wanton failure to guard against or warn of serious, concealed dangers. For instance, Revised Code § 1533.181 explicitly states that owners owe no duty to recreational users to keep safe and are not liable for injuries absent willful destruction of turf or malicious acts. State-specific statutes further tailor immunities, often for , timber, or rural lands where trespassing is common. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 75.002 provides that owners, lessees, or occupants of agricultural land owe no to trespassers and face no liability for their injuries, except for willful or wanton acts; this extends to recreational pursuits on such properties without charge. Similarly, § 846 immunizes owners from claims by persons entering private land for recreational purposes without fee, applying even to unpermitted entrants unless the owner willfully or maliciously fails to warn of latent perils known to create unreasonable risk. These limitations do not absolve liability for intentional traps or grossly negligent discovered after frequent trespassing patterns emerge, preserving a narrow exception aligned with causal responsibility for foreseeable harms. Exceptions and procedural limits reinforce owner protections: immunities generally lapse if a is charged for access, converting the entrant to an invitee with higher duties, or if the land is held open commercially rather than incidentally. Statutes of limitations for claims against owners, typically 1-3 years depending on the state, further constrain trespasser suits by requiring prompt filing post-injury. Such measures reflect legislative intent to prioritize property rights and risk allocation to unauthorized entrants, countering judicial expansions of liability while allowing claims only for egregious owner conduct.

Criminal Dimensions

Elements of Criminal Trespass

Criminal trespass constitutes a criminal offense distinct from civil , requiring proof of specific elements that emphasize the defendant's and , rather than mere unauthorized presence. In the United States, these elements are codified in state statutes often modeled after the (MPC), which defines the offense as occurring when a person, knowing they lack license or privilege, enters or surreptitiously remains in a building, occupied structure, or upon land of another. This requirement—knowledge of unauthorized status—elevates the act beyond , ensuring criminal liability attaches only to deliberate encroachments on property rights. The typically involves either physical entry onto restricted premises or refusal to depart after of of permission. For instance, statutes commonly specify that entry must be , and remaining after a to leave satisfies the element where initial entry was lawful. plays a pivotal role: many jurisdictions mandate that the received prior warning, such as through posted signs, oral notification, or indicating , to establish knowledge of boundaries. Absent such , mere entry onto unenclosed land may not suffice for criminality, reflecting a to owners' to control access without presuming universal awareness of invisible lines. Aggravating factors refine the elements by type and conduct. into a or building often demands heightened proof, such as surreptitious entry or possession of tools suggesting intent to evade detection, distinguishing from grades. The MPC delineates offenses by structure: simple on versus intrusion into occupied , with the latter implying greater threat to personal security. Courts interpret "knowing" as purposeful disregard, not mere recklessness, to avoid overcriminalizing accidental intrusions, as evidenced in federal analogs like 25 CFR § 11.411, which mirrors state formulations. These elements collectively safeguard while requiring evidentiary proof beyond civil standards, underscoring the offense's role in maintaining order without unduly burdening inadvertent actors. Criminal trespass penalties in the United States vary by jurisdiction and severity but generally constitute a misdemeanor offense, with punishments including fines ranging from $100 to $6,000 and jail terms up to one year. For instance, in Alabama, first-degree criminal trespass—entering or remaining on premises after notice—carries fines up to $6,000 and potential imprisonment, while simpler forms in states like Pennsylvania are summary offenses with lesser fines. Aggravated cases, such as those involving property damage, refusal to leave after personal warning, or entry into restricted areas like schools, may elevate to felonies with sentences exceeding one year. Federal criminal trespass, applicable on government lands or involving interstate elements, remains rare and typically results in misdemeanor charges with up to six months under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1752 for restricted buildings. Additional consequences often include , , and restitution for any damages, alongside civil liabilities. Enforcement trends indicate inconsistent application, with urban areas showing leniency in misdemeanor cases; in , dismissal rates for offenses rose from 45% in 2019 to contribute to an overall dismissal rate of 56% by 2023, reflecting prosecutorial policies prioritizing non-violent offenses amid resource constraints and reform efforts. National data on prosecutions remain limited due to state-level reporting, but federal sentencing statistics from the U.S. Sentencing Commission highlight in contexts like immigration-related entries, comprising a small fraction of cases with high rates. Post-2020, some jurisdictions have intensified enforcement against repeat or protest-related amid rising crimes, though comprehensive statistics are scarce and vary by local priorities.

Jurisdictional Variations

United States Developments

In the , premises liability law for trespassers derives from English , under which landowners owe trespassers only a minimal duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury, with no obligation to maintain safe conditions or warn of known dangers. This framework was largely codified through adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which most states follow: section 333 bars liability for harm from natural conditions or ordinary uses to undiscovered trespassers; section 335 requires reasonable care only for anticipated or discovered trespassers in active operations; and section 339 imposes liability under the for foreseeable child trespassers injured by artificial hazards. By the late , over 40 states had incorporated these provisions via or statutes, preserving distinct entrant categories despite criticisms of rigidity. A minority of jurisdictions, including (Rowland v. Christian, 1968) and New York (Basso v. Miller, 1976), abolished distinctions between invitees and licensees, imposing a general reasonable care , but retained lower duties for trespassers unless their presence is foreseeable or discovered. and represent outliers applying reasonable care broadly to foreseeable trespassers, but the majority—such as , , and —uphold status-based rules, limiting recovery for trespasser injuries to intentional harm. Statutory recreational use acts, enacted in all 50 states since the (e.g., 's law), further immunize owners from liability for injuries to recreational trespassers on rural or open lands, provided no fee is charged, to encourage public access without suit risk. Criminal trespass statutes vary by state but generally classify unauthorized entry or remaining on as a , with elements including lack of and (e.g., or signs). Penalties range from fines to one-year ; for example, Tennessee's (§ 39-14-405) defines it broadly, while states like require visible notices for conviction. Recent developments address and urban encroachment: Florida's 2024 law (SB 264) deems unauthorized occupants criminal trespassers, enabling 24-hour police removal without eviction court; New York and Georgia followed with similar 2024 measures expediting ousters and enhancing penalties for repeat offenders. Georgia's HB 827 (effective July 2024) added trespass for entering enclosures with wild animals, reflecting heightened protections for specialized properties. These changes, amid rising and disputes post-2020, prioritize owner rights over expanded entrant protections in 15+ states by 2025.

United Kingdom and International Perspectives

In the , occupiers' liability to trespassers is governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which imposes a narrow distinct from the broader obligations owed to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act. This duty requires an occupier to take reasonable steps to protect against injury or damage from known dangers on the premises, but it activates only if three conditions are met: the occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a specific danger exists; knows or has reasonable grounds to believe a trespasser is in or may enter the vicinity of that danger; and can reasonably be expected to mitigate the risk through practicable measures. The legislation, effective from 1 June 1985, codified and somewhat expanded prior principles, which limited recovery to cases of willful injury or hidden perils on artificial structures anticipated by the occupier, as established in cases like Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck (1929). The 1984 Act applies to , , and , while relies on common law, where liability remains confined to deliberate harm or reckless disregard for known trespassers, without a statutory equivalent. Courts have interpreted the duty restrictively; for instance, in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003), the held that occupiers need not eliminate natural risks like diving into shallow water, even if foreseeable, emphasizing trespassers' responsibility for their unauthorized actions. Exclusion of liability is permitted via notices or warnings for non-personal injury claims, preserving occupier protections against frivolous suits. Among other common law jurisdictions, approaches mirror the UK's qualified restraint on liability. In , state-based statutes predominate; South Australia's Civil Liability Act 1936, section 20(6), exempts occupiers from any duty to trespassers unless their presence and exposure to danger are known or reasonably foreseeable, with accountability limited to willful or reckless conduct. Queensland's framework similarly treats trespassers under a general duty but narrows it for unauthorized entrants, prioritizing property rights over expansive safeguards. In , provincial variations apply: Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act (1990) extends a baseline reasonable care duty to all entrants, including trespassers, but courts qualify it based on circumstances like criminal intent. Alberta's Occupiers' Liability Act (2000), section 5(2), shields occupiers from non-criminal trespasser claims absent willful or wanton injury, while deems those trespassing for criminal purposes to assume all risks. These frameworks, enacted between 1970 and 2000, balance minimal humanitarian obligations with robust defenses, diverging from uniform duties in civil law nations where entrant status distinctions are absent but exclusionary rights remain strong.

Reforms, Controversies, and Critiques

Attempts to Expand Owner Liability

The traditionally imposed minimal duties on property owners toward trespassers, limited primarily to refraining from intentional or willful harm. Efforts to expand this liability emerged in the early , driven by evolving views on foreseeability and humanitarian concerns, particularly for vulnerable entrants like children. The , originating in cases such as Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout (1879), holds landowners liable for injuries to child trespassers caused by artificial conditions on the that are likely to attract children and pose unreasonable risks, provided the owner fails to take reasonable precautions after discovering the danger. This represented a departure from strict no-duty rules, as it required owners to anticipate and mitigate hazards known to lure minors, such as unguarded machinery or pools, even absent permission to enter. In the United States, further expansions occurred through adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), which articulated duties to "discovered trespassers" (reasonable care for known artificial hazards) and frequent trespassers (reasonable care against foreseeable risks in habitual paths). Several states, including and New York, incorporated these standards, effectively broadening liability beyond mere willful to include in maintaining safe conditions for anticipated intruders. By the late , at least nine states—such as , , , and New York—abolished rigid entrant status categories (invitee, , trespasser) in favor of a general reasonable care duty under the circumstances, potentially extending protections to trespassers where risks are deemed foreseeable, as in urban settings with known or patterns of unauthorized access. This shift, critiqued by property rights advocates for eroding incentives to secure land, reflects judicial and legislative responses to and increased litigation, though empirical data on rates post-reform remains sparse. The American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (2010) proposed further expansion in §52, advocating a of reasonable care to all entrants except "flagrant trespassers" (those knowingly violating obvious warnings or barriers), aiming to align premises liability with modern principles rather than historical status distinctions. Academic critiques, such as those in articles, have supported this by arguing that limited duties to trespassers undervalue human life and ignore causal foreseeability in high-risk environments like abandoned industrial sites, where owners' inaction contributes to harms without deterring legitimate use. In the , the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 marked a statutory expansion by imposing a conditional duty on occupiers to take reasonable care to protect trespassers from known dangers, applicable when the occupier is aware of the trespasser's presence or likelihood thereof and believes the trespasser is unlikely to discover the risk. This extended protections, previously confined to willful acts, to include for specific hazards like unsecured pitfalls or machinery, provided it is feasible to warn or remedy without undue burden. The Act's framework, while narrower than duties to lawful visitors under the 1957 Act, responded to cases highlighting inequities, such as injuries from predictable intrusions, though subsequent critiques note its limitations in scope, prompting calls for broader application to non-obvious risks. Recent Irish amendments to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, effective 2023, focused on recalibrating rather than expanding duties, prioritizing affordability over further entrant protections.

Arguments for Preserving Strict Rules

Proponents of preserving limited or no-duty rules toward trespassers in tort law argue that such rules efficiently allocate risk to the party best able to avoid it, as trespassers can prevent injury at the lowest cost by electing not to enter the property without permission. This principle, rooted in the cheapest-cost-avoider framework, ensures that resources are not diverted to safeguard land against foreseeable but unauthorized intrusions, thereby minimizing social costs associated with precautions that yield no reciprocal benefit from entrants. Imposing an affirmative duty of care would compel landowners to undertake expensive modifications or inspections, distorting property use and undermining the functional basis of trespass doctrine, which prioritizes exclusion over accommodation of invaders. Strict rules also safeguard core property rights by avoiding the effective expropriation of landowners' subjective valuations, which include the value derived from exclusive control and . A to trespassers would force owners to internalize risks from others' deliberate violations, akin to subsidizing wrongful conduct and eroding the entitlement to exclude, a of that facilitates low-cost determination of boundaries without constant negotiation. This preservation incentivizes productive land stewardship without the overhang of liability for self-inflicted harms by moral undeserving parties who knowingly assume risks. Furthermore, no-duty regimes deter trespassing by denying recovery to those who flout boundaries, reducing the incidence of unauthorized entries and the judicial burden of adjudicating claims from such acts. Empirical persistence of these rules across jurisdictions, despite critiques, reflects their alignment with systemic priorities—favoring broad deterrence and efficiency over individualized compensation for foreseeable self-endangerment. Reforms expanding duties risk chilling land access for lawful users, as owners anticipate spillover litigation from disguised claims, whereas strict preservation maintains clear incentives: entrants bear the consequences of their choices, reinforcing causal .

References

  1. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/postmortem-dreamworks-interactive-s-i-trespasser-i-
  2. https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/trespasser-review/1900-2535286/
  3. https://www.thegamer.com/jurassic-park-trespasser/
  4. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304846/plotsummary/
  5. https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Jurassic_Park:_Trespasser
  6. https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2023/09/video-game-incorporates-physics
  7. https://fabiensanglard.net/trespasser/
  8. https://www.pcgamer.com/remembering-one-of-historys-worst-control-systems-in-jurassic-park-trespasser/
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/trespasser
  10. https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/land-use-laws/trespassing.html
  11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
  12. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/trespass-to-land.html
  13. https://www.lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/land-occupiers/
  14. https://classic.7sage.com/lawschool/lesson/torts-1-3-trespass/
  15. https://trespass.uslegal.com/elements-of-trespass/
  16. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/trespass-to-land
  17. https://cyber.harvard.edu/torts3y/readings/update-b-01.html
  18. https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/trespass-to-land.php
  19. https://fiveable.me/torts/unit-13
  20. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/42f91a3d-a872-4493-ba8e-414192aa2513/content
  21. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/12731/2/64_46YaleLJ1142_1936_1937_.pdf
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/786157.pdf
  23. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=crosskey_lectures
  24. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2611&context=faculty_scholarship
  25. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/trespasser_n
  26. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=mlr_fi
  27. https://academic.oup.com/book/8050/chapter/153447422
  28. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=ndlr
  29. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/14471/39_68YaleLJ633_1958_1959_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  30. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/06e1c312-63b0-4a5c-9656-1603a2175c5f/content
  31. https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/erie-railroad-co-v-tompkins
  32. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1777&context=faculty_scholarship
  33. https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/owning-a-home/homeowner-liability-invitees-licensees-and-trespassers.html
  34. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/pastor-church-law/church-property/premises-liability/liability-based-on-status-as-invitee-licensee-or-trespasser/
  35. https://www.smithlawcenter.com/blog/invitee-licensee-trespasser-difference
  36. https://contentdm.washburnlaw.edu/digital/api/collection/wlj/id/3016/download
  37. https://www.rafilawfirm.com/learn/invitee-licensee-trespasser-difference-impact-premises-liability-case/
  38. https://www.quimbee.com/resources/torts-quick-tip-premises-liability-to-invitees-and-licensees
  39. https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/status-distinctions-as-applied-to-children/child-trespassers/
  40. https://www.justia.com/injury/premises-liability/children-on-property/
  41. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attractive_nuisance_doctrine
  42. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/84/657/
  43. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3290&context=mulr
  44. https://alec.org/model-policy/trespasser-responsibility-act/
  45. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2232&context=lawreview
  46. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3097&context=mulr
  47. https://btlg.us/premises-liability-common-law-duty-v-statutory-duty/
  48. https://www.quimbee.com/resources/torts-quick-tip-premises-liability-to-trespassers
  49. https://law.wm.edu/academics/howto/prepareforbar/pastexams/february-2024-va-bar-exam.final-questions-answers.pdf
  50. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1417&context=wmlr
  51. https://www.justia.com/injury/premises-liability/
  52. https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/duty-owed-trespassers/
  53. https://www.nationalparalegal.edu/FundamentalsTortLaw.aspx
  54. https://www.margolisedelstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Murphy_premises-liability.pdf
  55. https://www.bordaslaw.com/blog-posts/general-law-premises-liability/
  56. https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2c83cab4e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  57. https://www.chicagolawyer.com/blog/trespassers-and-premises-liability/
  58. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.75.HTM
  59. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5131&context=lalrev
  60. https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2305.402
  61. https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1934/34678.html
  62. https://personalinjurylawcal.com/blog/duty-to-an-undiscovered-trespasser/
  63. https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9395
  64. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defense-of-property.html
  65. https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIB4.htm
  66. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2024/02/Paul-J.-Larkin.pdf
  67. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-criminallaw/chapter/5-3-other-use-of-force-defenses/
  68. https://www.doorloop.com/blog/how-to-remove-trespassers-from-your-property
  69. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground
  70. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/castle-doctrine-overview.html
  71. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/landowner-liability/
  72. https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/land-use-laws/homeowner-liability-for-trespasser-injuries.html
  73. https://premisesliability.uslegal.com/recreational-use-statutes/
  74. https://theraf.org/50-state-recreational-use-statute-survey/
  75. https://hoalaw.tinnellylaw.com/asked-answered-liability-for-injured-trespassers-in-an-hoa/
  76. https://www.floydlaw.com/information/recreational-immunity-no-fee-no-liability/
  77. https://flemingattorneys.com/blog/premises-liability/
  78. https://aglawjournal.wp.drake.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2018/10/110315LunnFinalMacro.pdf
  79. https://www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/paul-robinson/clrgcodes/MPC.html
  80. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/other-crimes/criminal-trespass/
  81. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.411
  82. https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chapter=35&section=3&subsctn=0
  83. https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article140.php
  84. https://www.criminallawweb.net/web1/MPC/PART1/snippets/221_2.htm
  85. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Tresspassing.htm
  86. https://hazzardfirm.com/blog/how-does-alabama-define-and-penalize-criminal-trespass-charges/
  87. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-521
  88. https://www.browninglonglaw.com/library/north-carolina-s-trespass-offenses-and-penalties.cfm
  89. https://www.lentolawgroup.com/criminal-trespassing
  90. https://www.city-journal.org/article/trespass-without-fear
  91. https://www.ussc.gov/about/annual-report-2023
  92. https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-research/
  93. https://www.primerus.com/legacy-files/files/Restatement%252050-State%2520Survey%252010.30.19.pdf
  94. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/6008e7de-8cc1-483e-ab04-82553fcc4a3d/download
  95. https://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fievet_LawReview_01.09.pdf
  96. https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1963&context=land_water
  97. https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-39/chapter-14/part-4/section-39-14-405/
  98. https://www.multifamilydive.com/news/states-see-wave-of-squatting-related-legislation/717212/
  99. https://www.aza.org/connect-stories/stories/the-wild-animal-criminal-trespass-law-a-landmark-step-in-zoo-safety-and-conservation
  100. https://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-state-guide-to-no-trespassing-laws-signage/?srsltid=AfmBOor7Y4z6V-6vuBZ8iiC27gGGZSfIoI4zRTJ0CBrCLUNRHXsNEZhJ1
  101. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/3
  102. https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/case-review/occupiers-liability-and-trespassers/
  103. https://dwfgroup.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2015/6/occupiers-liability-duty-owed-to-trespassers
  104. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/cla1936161/s20.html
  105. https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/health-and-wellbeing/accidents-and-injury/liability-exclusion-and-warning-signs-on-premises/
  106. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o02
  107. https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-o-4/latest/rsa-2000-c-o-4.html
  108. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_96337_01
  109. https://www.sedgwick.com/blog/the-shift-in-premise-liability-negligence-standards/
  110. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&context=wmlr
  111. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4286&context=lalrev
  112. https://www.uniwriter.ai/law/reform-of-occupiers-liability-addressing-key-weaknesses/
  113. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=facpub
  114. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4232&context=flr
  115. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Why_No_Duty_Updated.pdf
  116. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=6&article=1002&context=propertyjournal&type=additional
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.