Facts
- Irving Serota owned a home with a fuel-oil tank on the premises.
- M. & M. Utilities, Inc. was a fuel-oil supplier that had previously delivered oil to the same premises under a contract with the property’s former owner.
- Serota sued M. & M., alleging that the company, without Serota’s authorization, delivered fuel oil to his home and the delivery resulted in spillage onto the lawn and shrub beds surrounding the home.
- The complaint pleaded two theories: (1) trespass based on the unauthorized deposit of fuel oil on Serota’s land, and (2) negligence in the manner of delivery.
- M. & M. did not dispute that it made the delivery. It asserted that it still had a delivery contract with the former owner, that it had received no notice of cancellation, and that it assumed the tank had sufficient capacity because it did not know the tank had been filled in the interim by another delivery.
- Serota moved for summary judgment on the trespass claim.
Issues
- Whether a fuel-oil supplier commits actionable trespass when it intentionally performs an unauthorized delivery that results in fuel oil being deposited on the current owner’s land, even if the supplier believed it had a right to deliver based on a prior contract with a former owner.
- Whether the supplier’s asserted mistake about its right to deliver or about the tank’s capacity raises a material factual dispute that defeats summary judgment on trespass.
Decision
- The court granted Serota summary judgment on the first cause of action for trespass.
- The court treated the negligence claim as unnecessary to reach once liability was established on trespass, and did not grant separate summary judgment on negligence.
Legal Principles
- Trespass to land may be shown by an intentional physical act that results in an unauthorized physical invasion of another’s property, including the placing or depositing of a substance on the land.
- For trespass, the required intent is intent to do the act that causes the invasion (here, the delivery and resulting deposit), not an intent to violate the landowner’s rights or to commit a wrong.
- A landowner has a right to keep property in its original condition, free from unauthorized interference; a wrongful change to the land can support damages.
- A contract or arrangement with a prior owner does not, by itself, give a supplier permission to enter the land or deliver oil after ownership changes; authorization must come from the current owner, and a claimed lack of notice of cancellation does not by itself excuse an unauthorized entry or deposit.
Conclusion
The District Court of Nassau County held that M. & M.’s intentional act of delivering fuel oil, which resulted in an unauthorized deposit of oil on Serota’s property, constituted trespass as a matter of law; the company’s reliance on a delivery contract with the prior owner and its mistake about the tank’s contents did not create a triable defense, so summary judgment was granted to Serota on trespass and the negligence theory was not separately decided.