The Uninvited Guest

Question:

Jack invites his friend, Steve, over to his house for a dinner party. After the party ends, Jack asks Steve to leave, but Steve refuses and remains in Jack’s backyard for several hours, despite Jack’s repeated requests for him to leave. During this time, Steve does not damage any of Jack’s property but stays on the land without permission. Is Jack likely to succeed in his claim for trespass?

Baseline Response

Issue: The primary issue is whether Steve’s refusal to leave Jack’s property after being asked constitutes a trespass to land.

Rule: Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters or remains on another’s land without permission. The tort protects the owner’s exclusive right of possession over real property, such as land and buildings. Even if no damage occurs, the act of being on the property without authorization is sufficient to establish a claim. Consent to be on the land may initially be given, but once it is revoked, any continued presence becomes unlawful.

Application: In this context, Steve initially had permission to be on Jack’s property as an invited guest for the dinner party. However, once the party ended and Jack asked Steve to leave, any continued presence on the property was without consent. Steve’s refusal to leave after multiple requests shows that he intentionally remained on the land despite knowing that his presence was no longer authorized. Therefore, this satisfies the elements of trespass to land because Steve’s presence interfered with Jack’s exclusive right to control and possess his property.

Counterarguments: Steve might argue that because he was initially invited onto the property, he had implied consent to remain for a reasonable time, even after the dinner party ended. He may claim that Jack’s revocation of consent was abrupt and did not give him sufficient time to leave. However, this argument is unlikely to succeed because, once Jack explicitly revoked his consent, any further presence became unauthorized. Courts generally do not require a “grace period” for leaving, and immediate departure is expected once consent is withdrawn.

Conclusion: Jack is likely to succeed in his claim for trespass to land against Steve. Steve’s refusal to leave after consent was revoked constitutes unauthorized interference with Jack’s exclusive right to possess his property. Therefore, Steve is liable for trespass to land.