Also known as: intentional invasions
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An interference with a legally protected interest effected by conduct undertaken with the purpose of causing the interference or with knowledge that the interference is substantially certain to result. The interests protected include bodily security and exclusive possession of land. Apparent consent rules govern whether such an invasion is actionable.
James arrived at the Vertex Travel resort spa and lay face-down on the table after directing the therapist to do whatever magic she usually does. Geraldine performed deep-tissue work on his lower back, hips, and inner thighs. A reasonable therapist would interpret James's words and conduct as apparent consent to the contacts performed.
Ines Ibarra signed a general intake form authorizing standard massage techniques before her appointment. The therapist performed only those techniques. Because Ines herself gave the consent, the intentional contacts did not constitute an actionable invasion.
Ian Iverson told the spa receptionist that he consented to deep-tissue massage by any available therapist. Geraldine, the on-duty therapist, performed the work. The consent reached the person who performed the intentional contacts.
Iris Irons signed a form authorizing only light Swedish massage. The therapist instead applied intense deep-tissue pressure to her inner thighs. The intentional contacts exceeded the scope of the consent given to the particular conduct.
Isabelle Inman allowed a supposed building inspector to enter her land after he displayed a forged warrant. The inspector installed survey posts on the property. The consent was ineffective because it rested on a mistake about the validity of the purported legal authority.
Prah built a solar-heated home relying on unobstructed sunlight across his lot. Maretti later constructed a residence that cast a shadow blocking the sunlight. The shadow constituted an intentional invasion of Prah's interest in the use and enjoyment of his land.
The plaintiff, Frank Prah, owns a residence in a subdivision in the Town of Muskego that he constructed during 1978 or 1979. His home includes a solar energy system which includes roof-mounted solar collectors located on the south side of the roof. The solar energy system supplies heat for the plaintiff's domestic hot water and space heating. The plaintiff has invested $20,000 in his solar heating system. In 1980, the defendant, Richard D. Maretti, acquired the vacant lot immediately south of Prah's property and began planning to build a two-story residence whose roof would extend to within twelve feet of the lot line. The proposed structure would cast a shadow over Prah's solar collectors during the winter months, rendering the heating system inoperable. Prah informed Maretti about the solar system and asked him to adjust the location of the new home to avoid interference with the collectors, but Maretti declined to modify his plans. Prah then filed suit in the Circuit Court for Waukesha County, alleging that the construction would constitute a private nuisance and seeking injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which accepted certification.
View caseThe actor must act with the purpose of causing the interference or with knowledge that the interference is substantially certain to result. Negligent or inadvertent conduct does not qualify even if it produces the same contact.
Supporting sources
Apparent consent exists when the plaintiff's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person to believe consent has been granted. If apparent consent is present, the invasion is not actionable under the consent rules incorporated by the Restatement sections.
Supporting sources
The Restatement provisions on consent to intentional invasions of personality interests are applied by analogy to invasions of interests in land use and enjoyment, including in private nuisance cases.
Supporting sources
Consent induced by fraud or mistake concerning the validity of a purported legal authority is ineffective. The resulting intentional invasion remains actionable.
Supporting sources
…of the Restatement as follows: "Sec. 827. Gravity of Harm — Factors Involved. In determining the gravity of the harm from an intentional invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land, the following factors are important: (a) The extent of the harm involved; (b) the character of the harm involved; (c) the social…