Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

Hulle v. Orynge (The Case of Thorns)

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. King’s Bench, 1466. Y.B.M. 6 Edw. IV, folio 7, placitum 18.

Brief Fact Summary. When trying to retrieve thorns that dropped onto Plaintiff’s property, Defendant damaged crops and although Defendant had justification to enter Plaintiff’s property, he was found liable for trespass.

 

 


Synopsis of Rule of Law. One who voluntarily does an act which results in damages to another is responsible for the damages even if the act was lawful.

 


Facts. Defendant was trimming thorns on his property and some landed on Plaintiff’s property. When attempting to retrieve the thorns, Defendant damaged some of Plaintiff’s crops. Plaintiff then sued Defendant for trespass and for damages related to his destroyed crops. Defendant tried to defend the claim with the argument that because he was justified in trespassing to retrieve the thorns (i.e. acting lawfully), Plaintiff should have no cause of action.

 


Issue. Is a party liable for unintentional damages arising from a lawful intentional act?

 


Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.