## Facts

- The Harrisons owned Louisiana marshland whose primary economic value was muskrat trapping, supported by vegetation and soil suitable for muskrat nesting and feeding.
- Petroleum Surveys, Inc., conducting seismic exploration, used heavy “marsh buggies” and explosives that churned and crushed marsh terrain.
- Petroleum Surveys admitted an unintentional trespass onto about two acres of the Harrisons’ marsh due to a surveying mistake.
- The trespass allegedly destroyed muskrat-supporting grasses, damaged the marsh structure, and killed muskrats in nests and tunnels.
- Expert testimony indicated the crushed marsh would take roughly 8–10 years to return to its prior muskrat-supporting condition.
- The Harrisons sought damages for muskrats allegedly killed and for reduced future trapping profitability during the recovery period.
- The trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that muskrats are wild animals owned by the state and therefore plaintiffs could not recover damages measured by muskrats killed or future muskrats not trapped.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may recover trespass damages for economic loss to muskrat-trapping operations and habitat impairment when the wild muskrats are owned by the state.
2. Whether the landowner’s exclusive right to trap muskrats on their land is a compensable property interest injured by trespass.
3. What measure of damages applies when trespass temporarily destroys the land’s profit-producing capacity for wildlife trapping.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit reversed the dismissal.
- The court held the Harrisons could recover for economic loss from impaired trapping use of their land, notwithstanding state ownership of wild animals.
- The court treated the injury as damage to the land’s productive use and to the landowners’ exclusive right to trap on their property.
- The court rejected limiting damages to the value of destroyed grass or restoration cost when that measure would not compensate for loss of use.
- The court awarded damages based on the estimated lost muskrat harvest over the recovery period (reported as 100 muskrats per year for eight years at about $0.57 per muskrat).

## Legal Principles

- State ownership of wild animals does not bar a landowner’s recovery for trespass that damages the land and the land’s profit-producing use tied to wildlife.
- A landowner’s exclusive right to capture/trap wild animals on their own land is a compensable interest; interference with that right by trespass supports damages.
- Trespass liability includes actual damages caused even when the entry is unintentional.
- When land’s principal value is a profit-making use, damages may be measured by loss of use or lost profits for the period reasonably required for restoration, rather than only by physical restoration cost or vegetation value.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that, although wild muskrats are held in the state’s sovereign ownership, landowners may recover trespass damages for impairment of their land’s muskrat-trapping capacity because the exclusive right to trap on one’s own land and the associated economic use are compensable property interests.


Harrison v. Petroleum Surveys, Inc., 80 So. 2d 153 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955)