Presentation on theme: "1. Every two weeks, I find a copy of the Putnam-Northern Westchester Express in my driveway. It purports to be a newspaper, but it really is primarily."— Presentation transcript:
1 1. Every two weeks, I find a copy of the Putnam-Northern Westchester Express in my driveway. It purports to be a newspaper, but it really is primarily a collection of advertising. I don’t want it. It’s a nuisance, because I have to stop the car, get out, retrieve the item, and then dispose of it, and I’m am old and ornery. If I bring an action in trespass against the publisher, am I likely to prevail?
2 A. No, provided that the individual who actually delivers the item neither drives onto or steps on my driveway.
3 B. Yes, provided that I have told the publisher that I do not want the publication.
4 C. No, because the First Amendment protects the publisher’s right to publish and distribute its product.
5 D. Yes, because the publisher, through its delivery agent, has entered my property.
6 2. On the same set of facts as before, if I have twice told the publisher that I do not want the publication, does that increase the likelihood that I can recover for trespass for deliveries occurring after that?
7 A. No, because it is not a prerequisite to recovery that the owner tell the public (or any member of it) not to enter the property.
8 B. Yes, because it makes it unmistakable that the publisher knows it is unwelcome.
9 C. No, because the publisher is privileged to deliver the paper.
10 D. Yes, because it establishes the publisher’s purpose to aggravate me by dumping its product in my driveway.
11 3. On the same set of facts, is my having twice told the publisher that I do not want the publication of any relevance when the action comes to trial?
12 A. No, because the trespass is already established.
13 B. Yes, because it is proof that the publisher had the mental element required for trespass.
14 C. No, because mistake by the publisher as to whether the entry was permitted is not a defense.
15 D. Yes, because this is an intentional tort, and the warnings are relevant to the issue of punitive damages.