## Facts

- Matilda S. Longenecker owned real property adjoining Mrs. H. Wade Zimmerman’s residence lot.
- Without Longenecker’s permission, Zimmerman hired a tree service to enter Longenecker’s land and cut/prune three cedar trees located a few feet inside Longenecker’s boundary line.
- Longenecker claimed the trees were topped by about ten feet, would not grow taller, and were effectively destroyed; she valued them at approximately $150–$200 each and sought treble damages under a Kansas statute.
- Zimmerman asserted the trees appeared diseased or infested (dead wood and bagworms) and that the work was limited, beneficial pruning that did not injure the trees; an expert agreed removal of dead wood would not harm the trees but conceded removing the actual top stops future height growth.
- The trial court refused Longenecker’s requested instruction that an unauthorized entry constitutes trespass entitling her to at least nominal damages, and instead instructed the jury to decide whether the trees were injured and, if so, what damages to award.
- The jury found for Zimmerman, and the trial court denied Longenecker’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether an unauthorized entry onto another’s land is actionable as trespass without proof of actual damage, entitling the plaintiff to at least nominal damages.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a nominal-damages instruction and by conditioning recovery on proof of actual injury to the trees.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Zimmerman and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that an unauthorized invasion of another’s property is actionable without proof of actual injury and supports at least nominal damages.
- The trial court’s instructions were erroneous because they allowed a defense verdict even if the jury believed an unauthorized entry occurred but found no tree injury.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass to land is actionable per se: from every unauthorized invasion of another’s person or property, the law infers some damage without proof of actual injury.
- Proof of actual harm affects the amount of damages, not the existence of liability for trespass.
- When evidence would permit a finding of unauthorized entry, the jury should be instructed that nominal damages must be awarded even if no substantial loss is proven.
- A defendant’s belief that the entry or cutting was justified or beneficial does not negate trespass liability if the entry was unauthorized.

## Conclusion

Because trespass liability arises from the unauthorized entry itself, the jury should have been instructed that Longenecker was entitled to at least nominal damages upon proof of such an invasion, with any additional (including statutory) damages dependent on proof of actual injury; the failure to give that instruction required a new trial.


Longenecker v. Zimmerman, 267 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1954)