## Facts

- Homer and Mary Baker returned home and found their neighbors, John and Mrs. Shymkiv, removing tools and equipment after digging a trench across the Bakers’ driveway.
- The trench contained drain tile intended to divert water from the Shymkivs’ property and discharge it onto an adjoining landowner’s property.
- Homer became angry, confronted John Shymkiv, and yelled about the trench.
- Mary stepped between the men, told Homer to calm down, and went inside to call the police.
- About three minutes later, Mary returned and found Homer face-down in muddy water on the driveway; she saw the Shymkivs driving away.
- Homer died from a heart attack.
- Mary, as administratrix of Homer’s estate, sued for wrongful death (her pecuniary loss) and for trespass (compensatory and punitive damages).

## Issues

1. In an action based on intentional trespass, must the plaintiff prove the resulting damages were foreseeable to recover, including for bodily harm and death?
2. If foreseeability is not required, what causal showing is still necessary to impose liability for bodily harm occurring during the trespass?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
- The trial court erred by instructing the jury that only foreseeable damages could support liability for an intentional trespass.
- Damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable.
- Plaintiffs must still prove proximate cause between the trespass (and conduct during it) and the injury or death.

## Legal Principles

- An intentional trespasser is liable for compensatory damages without a foreseeability limitation on the type or extent of harm, so long as the harm is proximately caused by the trespass and conduct occurring during its continuance.
- Intentional wrongdoers are treated as less favored than negligent actors in allocating the risk of unexpected or unusual harm; the victim’s interest in full compensation is given greater weight.
- Intentional entry onto another’s land constitutes trespass even if the entry does not cause separate harm to a legally protected interest.
- Removing foreseeability as a damages limitation in intentional trespass does not remove the requirement that the plaintiff establish factual and proximate causation for the claimed injury.

## Conclusion

The court held that foreseeability is not a prerequisite to recovering damages from an intentional trespasser; liability may include bodily harm and wrongful-death damages occurring during the trespass if the plaintiff proves the trespass proximately caused the injury.


Baker v. Shymkiv, 6 Ohio St. 3d 151, 451 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio 1983)