PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 11.2

T RESPASS

PJC 11.2

Trespass to Real Property—Basic Question

QUESTION ______ Did Don Davis trespass on Paul Payne ’s property?

“Trespass” means an entry on the property of another without having con sent or authorization of the owner. To constitute trespass, entry upon another’s property need not be in person, but may be made by causing or permitting a thing to cross the boundary of the property. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 11.2 should be used for civil trespass claims. See PJC 11.1 on when to use this question as opposed to other causes of action that sound in trespass. Source of definition. Trespass to real property is an unauthorized entry onto the land of another and may occur when one enters—or causes something to enter— another’s property. PJC 11.2 is derived from Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. v. FPL Farming, Ltd. , 457 S.W.3d 414, 425 (Tex. 2015), and Barnes v. Mathis , 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); see Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust , 268 S.W.3d 1, 11–12 nn. 29, 36 (Tex. 2008) (stating that “every unau thorized entry upon land of another is a trespass even if no damage is done or injury is slight”); see also Gregg v. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corp. , 344 S.W.2d 411, 416 (Tex. 1961) (entry on another’s land need not be in person but may be made by causing or permit ting a thing to cross the boundary at issue). Elements of trespass. The three elements of a trespass action can be character ized as follows: (1) entry; (2) onto the property of another; and (3) without the prop erty owner’s consent or authorization. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. , 457 S.W.3d at 419. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove lack of consent. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. , 457 S.W.3d at 419. Intent is objectively measured. The plaintiff need only prove interference with the right of possession of real property; the only relevant intent is that of the actor to enter the property. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Cowan , 945 S.W.2d 819, 827 (Tex. 1997). The actor’s subjective intent or awareness of the property’s ownership is irrelevant. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. , 945 S.W.2d at 819.

156