Brief Fact Summary. Pursuant to a license, Defendant placed a snow fence and posts upon Plaintiff’s husband’s property with the understanding that it would be removed at the end of winter. Defendant did not remove the fence at the end of winter, and Plaintiff’s husband was killed by an accident involving the fence’s continued presence on his property. Plaintiff sued for trespass and negligence.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When one consents to the presence of a structure or chattel on his property and that structure or chattel is not removed after the consent is revoked or terminated, he may recover for damages resulting from its continued presence.
Issue. Was the Trial Court correct in dismissing the cause of action in trespass?
Held. No. The judgment was reversed and remanded. The license and agreement rendering the snow fence’s presence initially lawful did not bar an action for its presence after it should have been removed. Once consent or license to a structure or chattel’s presence upon one’s land is effectively terminated, the presence may revert to a trespass.
Discussion. This case demonstrates other possible dimensions of an intrusion upon another’s land. The Court recognizes that the fence was properly on the property in the first instance and was thus not originally a trespass. Had the injury occurred during the winter months, no damages could have been sought in trespass. However, due to the expiration of the license period, the fence’s continued presence ripened into a trespass, and the damages became recoverable.