Longenecker v. Zimmerman

267 P.2d 543 · Supreme Court of Kansas · 1954

Facts

Plaintiff sued defendant for trespass after defendant, without permission, hired a company to top three cedar trees on plaintiff's property, allegedly destroying their value. Defendant admitted the trespass but the trial court instructed the jury to determine if plaintiff sustained any damages, leading to a verdict for the defendant.

Issue

Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that they must find actual damages for an admitted trespass, rather than instructing that damages, at least nominal, result as a matter of law?

Holding

Yes, the trial court erred. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial because the jury should have been instructed that damages, in some amount, resulted as a matter of law from the admitted trespass.

Rule

In an action for trespass, the law infers some damage from every direct invasion of another's property, entitling the plaintiff to at least nominal damages even without proof of actual injury.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-07. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.