P allowed D to place a snow fence on P's property on the condition that it was removed, along with all anchor posts, at the end of each winter.
D failed to remove an anchor post one year, and P's husband hit the post with his lawnmower, causing his death.
P sued D for trespass.
Procedural History:
Trial court dismissed P's action (claimed it was negligence, not trespass).
MI Supreme Court reversed, reinstated P's claim in trespass.
Issues:
Is an action brought in trespass valid through the continued presence of a structure on the land after the landowner has terminated his consent to have the property on his land?
Holding/Rule:
An action brought in trespass is valid through the continued presence of a structure on the land after the landowner has terminated his consent to have the property on his land.
Reasoning:
Failure to remove the posts constituted trespass and proximately caused P's husband's death.
Consent to enter someone's land may be limited in scope, time, and space.
Where an injury has occurred as a result of trespass, some courts do not require a showing of forseeability of the injury in order to compensate P.
