4. Which, if any, of the following allegations, without additional facts, would provide a sufficient basis for a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant?

Liability for an intentional tort requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted, with intent, and his action caused the result that gave rise to liability.

To establish a prima facie case for trespass to land, the following elements must be proved: (i) an act of physical invasion of plaintiff's real property by the defendant; (ii) intent by the defendant to bring about a physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property; and (iii) causation. Mistake as to the lawfulness of the entry is no defense as long as the defendant intended the entry upon that particular piece of land. Intent to trespass is not necessary, only intent to enter the land is required. As with most intentional torts, damage is presumed, i.e., actual injury to the land is not an essential element of the cause of action.

Exam Tip: This question is asking you to consider the facts given and, by process of elimination, determine which of the additional facts offered would amount to a claim against the defendant. In other words, one by one, IF true, which of the facts would satisfy a prima facie case?

A is correct. A close reading of the facts shows that the only possible claim against the defendant is trespass to land, which requires a showing that the defendant physically invaded the plaintiff's property, with the intent to invade it, and his actions caused the result. The facts state that the defendant physically invaded the plaintiff's land by driving a car, which satisfies the first and third elements of a trespass claim. This answer choice, that the defendant intentionally drove his car onto the plaintiff's land, would satisfy the second and final element, giving rise to a prima facie case for trespass.

B is incorrect. If the defendant's car caused damage to the plaintiff's land, and no other facts are true, this would fall short of a sufficient trespass claim because there is no evidence that the defendant intended to physically invade the plaintiff's land, as explained above. Moreover, as with most intentional torts, damages are presumed. Actual injury to the land is not an essential element of trespass.

C is incorrect. A showing that the defendant negligently drove his car onto the plaintiff's land would actually defeat a trespass claim, not bolster it. If the defendant entered the land unintentionally, even if negligently, his intent to enter the land could not be shown and the claim would fail.

D is incorrect. As previously stated, a showing of damages is not required for a trespass claim. Damages are presumed, as with most intentional torts. Moreover, if there were no additional facts besides damage to the plaintiff's personal property, the intent element would not be satisfied and the claim would fail.