Imagine: You’re enjoying your summer day, drinking some tea, watching your kids, and as you are acknowledging your beautiful landscape, you notice a shed on the line of your property that looks like it collapsed and ended up on your side. Someone’s shed has fallen onto your property. Did they refuse to move it? Will you have a cause of action? It’s interfering with your view and you can’t help but think, do I need to call an attorney?
Does this constitute trespass or is it just a minor inconvenience that could somehow fall under the nuisance category? Let’s take a look at the law from the Legal Information Institute.
Trespass: trespass to land is the standard for this cause of action
Trespass to Land: If an individual physically invades an owner’s real property or causes an object or a third person to invade it, he or she may be liable for trespass to land. As an intentional tort, the intent is required. Instead of intent to trespass, intent to enter or remain on the land is required, no matter what the trespasser knows the land is owned by others. The owner needn’t prove that they suffer actual damages of value decreasing or property repairing, even a nominal damage claim will be permissible. -Legal Information Institute
There has to be an intentional act of some sort for a shed falling on your land to constitute a trespass to land. Intentional means the person meant to do it. Now, if your neighbor intentionally ignored the dilapidation of the shed there could be a cause for action. Intentionally ignoring a shed falling onto your land is unreasonable. But maybe the neighbor did not know the property lines? Let us look at the alternative: nuisance.
Nuisance: specifically private versus a public nuisance, this would not fall under the public nuisance category
A private nuisance is when the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her land is interfered with substantially and unreasonably through a thing or activity. -Legal Information Institute
Does the shed falling on your property substantially and unreasonably interfere with the use of your property? Depends on what you consider substantial and unreasonable. If the case were to proceed before a judge, it could be seen as a minor interference. It will depend on what the court will consider substantial and unreasonable. A court may be lenient, the court may deny it.
Now, if the neighbor refuses to remove the shed remains on your property, that could be an unreasonable interference with your property. You may have a case. A neighbor refusing to remove their remains from your property is a nuisance because it interferes with the use and enjoyment of your property. You can still bring the claim even if the reason for you is aesthetic concerns. No matter what the reason you may be entitled to compensation for the injustice. Remember, no problem is too little to be considered an injustice.
King Law Offices is a full-service law firm with an outstanding team of professionals who work diligently, creatively, and compassionately on behalf of our clients each day. We serve the Upstate of South Carolina and Western North Carolina. Call 888-748-KING today to set up a consultation with one of our dedicated civil litigation attorneys.
