## Facts

- Garrett owned farm land adjoining Sewell’s land.
- A boundary fence separated the properties.
- Garrett alleged Sewell wrongfully removed part of the fence, creating an opening.
- After the fence was opened, livestock entered Garrett’s property through the gap and destroyed crops.
- Sewell denied wrongdoing and asserted, in substance, that Garrett’s own lack of ordinary care contributed to the loss because she knew of the opening and failed to repair it.
- The trial court excluded evidence of crop destruction as too remote from the fence removal, and the jury returned nominal damages and costs.
- Garrett appealed, challenging the exclusion of consequential-damages evidence and the resulting limitation to nominal damages.

## Issues

1. Whether crop destruction by livestock entering through a fence opening created by an alleged trespass is a natural and proximate consequence of the trespass, recoverable as damages, or too remote as a matter of law.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s knowledge of the fence opening and failure to repair it bars recovery of such consequential damages or just presents a fact question for the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded.
- The court held that crop damage from livestock entering through the trespass-created opening was not too remote and was admissible as an element of damages in trespass.
- The court held that Garrett’s knowledge of the opening and failure to repair it did not bar recovery as a matter of law and did not justify excluding the evidence.
- Because the trial court’s evidentiary ruling confined recovery to nominal damages, a new trial was required.

## Legal Principles

- In trespass, a plaintiff may recover all damages that are the natural and proximate consequences of the wrongful act, not merely nominal damages.
- When a defendant’s trespass consists of removing a boundary fence, damage caused by animals entering through the resulting opening and destroying crops can be a foreseeable, proximate consequence.
- A plaintiff’s knowledge of the dangerous condition created by the trespass and failure to repair it does not automatically break causation or preclude recovery; it may be considered by the jury on causation and mitigation.

## Conclusion

The court required admission of evidence of crop losses because such damage could be a foreseeable and proximate result of removing a boundary fence, and the plaintiff’s inaction after learning of the gap did not, as a matter of law, eliminate the defendant’s liability for consequential trespass damages.


Garrett v. Sewell, 18 So. 737 (Ala. 1895)