A missile company conducted a routine test of a rocket engine at a remote site. The engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, and its thrust was directed downward into the ground. Upon ignition, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and debris particles from the rocket fell onto a nearby farm. However, the particles were quickly blown away by the wind, and there was no damage to the land.
What is the main reason the company will not be held liable for trespass?
A missile company conducted a routine test of a rocket engine at a remote site. The engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, and its thrust was directed downward into the ground. Upon ignition, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and debris particles from the rocket fell onto a nearby farm. However, the particles were quickly blown away by the wind, and there was no damage to the land.
What is the main reason the company will not be held liable for trespass?
The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.
C)If a company had no reason to anticipate that their tests would cause the results that occurred, then the company did not intend to commit the act constituting trespass. In such a case, there is no cause of action for trespass. Trespass to land is an intentional, unlawful, direct interference with someone's possession of land. The intent required is not the intent to trespass. Therefore, if the defendant intended to enter upon a particular piece of land, a mistake as to the lawfulness of the entry onto another's land is no defence. In this scenario, the company fired the rocket engine which caused debris to fall onto the farmer's property. This would be enough physical interference for a trespass action. However, it is necessary to show that the company intended to send this debris onto the farmer's land to maintain this action. If the company had no reason to anticipate that its rocket engine tests would cause the debris to fall onto the farmer's property, then the company did not intend to make any entry onto the farmer's property, and will not be liable for trespass.
Option (A) is incorrect because the farmer's knowledge of the use of the adjoining land for engine tests will not allow the company to avoid liability for an act that would otherwise be characterized as a trespass.
Option (B) is incorrect because physical interference does not require that the defendant personally set foot on the land.
Option (D) is incorrect because the defence of necessity arises to protect the public from what is perceived to be a greater danger, and the defendant's action was prompted by a reasonable perception that it was required to avoid an immediate and imminent danger judged by the circumstances at the time. Here, the facts state that the rocket test was routine, so it could not be an immediate and imminent danger.
Option (E) is incorrect because trespassing on land is actionable per se. In other words, actual damages need not be proven. In the absence of actual damages, nominal damages will be awarded to the claimant.