Torts

ANSWER TORTS ESSAY ONE

I.

Farmer v. Pilot

A.

Trespass to land. Farmer will assert a claim for damages to his farmland

caused by Pilot’ emergency landing under the intentional tort of trespass

s

to land. This claim will be successful if Farmer can establish that Pilot

committed the following requisite elements of the tort: a voluntary entry

onto the plaintiff’ land committed with the intent to enter the land of

s

another. There is no question that Pilot entered land belonging to the

plaintiff (Farmer), so the only issues here are whether the entry was both

voluntary and intentional.

1.

Voluntary. Here, Pilot’ decision to land the plane although

s

“forced” by circumstances, was still a choice. She guided the

plane into the landing on Farmer’ field rather than onto other

s

property that had trees or homes. Thus, her act should be

considered to be voluntary.

2.

Intentional. The intent element requires only a showing that the

defendant intended the act that results in the entry onto the land of

another, not that the defendant desired or even knew that the land

entered belonged to another. The fact that Pilot may have thought

the land was vacant and not owned by Farmer is no defense

because mistake as to ownership of land is no defense to trespass

to land. The elements of trespass to land are present, but Farmer

will be denied recovery if any defenses to this tort exist.

3.

Necessity defense. The defense of necessity exists if the defendant

acts out of public or private necessity to avoid some greater harm.

When the defendant acts to prevent substantial public harm, the

defense of public necessity exists and excuses the defendant from

both the trespass to land tort and for any liability for damage

caused to the plaintiff’ land. However, where the threatened harm

s

is not one of substantial public harm but some lesser harm, the

defense of private necessity applies. Under this defense, the

defendant will be liable for...