|
Sponsored Links
Trespass (Fr. trespas, a crime, properly a stepping across, from Lat. trans, across, and passus, step, cf. "transgression," from transgredi, to step across) is a legal concept, which refers to intrusion into another person's property. Most commonly people think of trespass to land, which can be a crime[1] a tort,[2] or both, depending on the jurisdiction. For instance, in England and Wales, despite the prevalence of notices asserting that "trespassers will be prosecuted", unless the trespass is aggravated in some way it is not a crime, and will only be a tort. There are also torts for trespass to chattels and trespass to the person. In most countries it is classed as an "intentional tort" (you need to intend to have trespassed to be held liable) but in some countries (e.g. Australia) it has been subsumed into the law of negligence. Trespass includes a great variety of torts committed to land, goods or person, distinguished generally by names drawn from the writs once used as appropriate to the particular transgression, such as vi et armis (with "force and arms"), quare clausum fregit de bonis asportatis, de uxore abducta cum bonis viri, quare filium et heredem rapuit, etc. In England up to 1694 the trespasser was regarded, nominally at any rate, as a criminal, and was liable to a fine for the breach of the peace, commuted for a small sum of money, for which 5 Will. and Mar. C. 12 (1693) substituted a fee of 6s. 8d. recoverable as costs against the defendant. Trespass is not now criminal in England except by special statutory enactment, e.g. the old statutes against forcible entry, the game acts, and the private acts of many railway companies. When, however, trespass is carried sufficiently far it may become criminal, and be prosecuted as assault if to the person, as nuisance if to the land. At one time an important distinction was drawn between trespass general and trespass special or trespass on the case, for which see Tort. The difference between trespass and case was sometimes a very narrow one the general rule was that where the injury was directly caused by the act of the defendant the proper remedy was trespass, where indirectly case. The difference is illustrated by the action for false imprisonment if the defendant himself imprisoned the plaintiff the action was trespass; if a third person did so on the information of the defendant it was case. A close parallel is found in Roman law in the actio directa under the lex Aquilia for injury caused directly, the actio utilis for that caused indirectly. One of the reasons for the rapid extension of the action on the case, especially that form of it called assumpsit, was no doubt the fact that in the action on the case the defendant was not allowed to wage his law (see "legal wager").
|
Trespass Subcategories
Trespass Articles
|
|
