Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Week 6 - Ream v Keen Discussion - Week 6 Group 3 From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020) If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion
From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020)
If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion.
DO NOT simply copy or attach your brief. Condense the brief into its essentials to teach your classmates.
If another classmate has already posted, feel free to respond with alternative understanding of the case and try to work it out. That’s the BEST learning! I will chime in with clarification if necessary.
Ream v. Keen
Facts:
Plaintiff = Merle Ream and Kathleen Ream, Defendant = Gary Keen
Plaintiffs (Ream) brought this case to action based on the alleged damages that were result to drifted smoke on their residential property from a field burning operation. The alleged damages consisted of $950 for soot removal and an additional $20,000 in general damages for physical and emotional distress. Plaintiffs made a claim stating intentional trespass and for “strict liability”, based that the field burning was a considerably dangerous activity. Plaintiffs also challenged the
The defendant (Keen) motioned to strike the plaintiffs claim, allowed by the trial court. The trial court denied the plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict as to liability on the trespass claim which in turn gave a general verdict to for the defendant. The plaintiffs challenged the denial of their directed verdict motion on the trespass claim.
The defendant later admitted that he was aware that the smoke from his field burning operation would drift to the plaintiffs property. The trial court proceeded with the directed verdict involving the nature of the plaintiffs and remained up to jury decision.
Issue:
Was the smoke damage from the defendants burning operation drifted to the plaintiffs property a matter of intentional trespass and strict liability?
Rule:
Actual damage is not necessary for a defendant to be liable for intentional trespass.
Holding:
Defendant offered evidence over the plaintiffs objection, explaining he had a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality for the fields burning activity [and] the activity was consistent with the departments regulations.
Reasoning:
The permit held by the defendant is not upheld in reasonableness of the defendant’s actions, unable to relieve him from liability for intentional trespass. The Oregon Court of Appeals finds the defendant guilty on the basis that an intentional trespass was established as a mater of law and remind for a determination of damages inflicted on the plaintiff.
