Stephen Marsalis
Law 573
6/14/17
Case Brief – Jacques v Steenberg Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin 563 N.W. 2d 154 (1997)
Facts: Steenberg Homes had to get a home delivered to its owners and the easiest path
was across the property of the Harvey and Lois Jacque. The company offered to pay for the right
to take the home across the Jacques land, but the couple refused, being reluctant to allow others
to cross their property after a previous legal case. Steenberg Homes delivered the home across
their land anyway, causing the Jacques to file suit for intentional trespass.
Parties: Harvey and Lois Jacque, plaintiffs, and Steenberg Homes, defendant.
Procedural History: The case was filed in a trial court of Wisconsin, where the jury
awarded the Jacques $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000.00 in punitive damages. The case
was appealed to an appellate court, which reversed the $100,000 in punitive damages, arguing
that nominal damages cannot support a punitive damage award.
Issue: Can nominal damages support a punitive damage award in place of compensatory
damages, if so, does it apply to Steenberg Homes and is the $100,000.00 award excessive?
Party Arguments: Plaintifs argue that an intentional trespass to land should be punished
with punitive damages. Defendant argues punitive damages must be supported by compensatory
damages, which the Jacques did not receive since their land suffered no damage.
Rationale: The court notes the general rule under the Barnard v Cohen precedent,
punitive damages typically must be supported by compensatory damages. However, the court has
not directly addressed the issue of punitive damages supported by nominal damages in cases of
intentional trespass to land. However, past cases show that punitive damages can be levied as a
way to “serve as an example,” even where there are no compensatory damages. The British
Merest v Harvey also serves as a precedent for assigning punitive damages without
compensatory damages. The purpose in that case was to protect the rights of property. The same
principle applies here. While the Jacques did not suffer any real compensatory damages, their
real loss was the loss of the right of exclusion from their property. Landowners have an interest
in protecting their property rights as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Without sufficient
protections from the government, such rights are “hollow.” With the example of the Jacques,
actual harm happens with every intentional trespass, regardless of the measurable dollar amount.
These trespasses threaten the rights of the owners. Allowing punitive damages serves to protect
the integrity of the legal system.
Disposition: The ruling of the appellate court is reversed.
Concurrence: No concurring opinions.
Dissent: No dissenting opinions.