| |
| | Innocent intentional trespass (Lewis Klar, 27 Feb 2006) |
 | | As you and others have noted, trespass actions in the United States no longer require direct interference, but they do require intent (yet are still "strict liability" in the sense of liability in the absence of [subjective or objective] fault, for the sorts of cases that we are discussing). |
 | | On the other hand, although they are "trespassery torts," actions for trespasses to the person (assault, battery, false imprisonment) are not referred to in the United States as trespass actions, but rather by their specific name (assault, battery, false imprisonment). |
 | | Apparently, there would be clear liability for trespass to person under Canadian tort law in the hypothetical that I posed of the hiker in the deep dark woods who sat on, pissed on, or chopped on the sleeping plaintiff whom the hiker believed was a log, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief. |
| www.ucc.ie /law/odg/messages/060227c.htm (743 words) |
|