Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.

563 N.W.2d 154 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1997

Facts

Harvey and Lois Jacque (the Jacques) owned 170 acres of land. Steenberg Homes, Inc. (Steenberg) needed to deliver a mobile home to a neighbor, and the easiest route was across the Jacques' snow-covered field. Despite the Jacques' adamant and repeated protests, Steenberg employees, under the direction of an assistant manager, plowed a path through the Jacques' land and delivered the mobile home. Mr. Jacque reported the incident to the sheriff, and Steenberg's assistant manager received a $30 citation for trespass.

Procedural history

The Jacques sued Steenberg Homes in circuit court, where a jury awarded them $1 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court set aside the punitive damage award, concluding that punitive damages could not be awarded without compensatory damages. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, feeling bound by precedent. The case then came before this court (the Supreme Court of Wisconsin) on appeal.

Issue

Can an award of nominal damages for intentional trespass to land support an award of punitive damages? If so, should this rule apply to the defendant, and is the $100,000 punitive damage award excessive?

Holding

Yes, when nominal damages are awarded for an intentional trespass to land, punitive damages may, in the discretion of the jury, be awarded. This new rule applies to Steenberg, and the $100,000 punitive damage award is not excessive.

Rule

The general rule that punitive damages require compensatory damages does not apply to intentional trespass to land. The court established an exception, holding that nominal damages can support punitive damages in such cases. This is because the individual's right to exclude others from their property is a fundamental right, and intentional trespass causes actual harm, even if immeasurable in dollars. Society also has a strong interest in punishing and deterring intentional trespassers to preserve the legal system's integrity and prevent self-help remedies. The court also applied factors for excessiveness, finding Steenberg's conduct highly reprehensible and the $30 forfeiture insufficient deterrence.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.