Harvey and Lois Jacque owned rural land in Wisconsin. Steenberg Homes sold a mobile home to the Jacques' neighbors and sought to deliver it across the Jacques' property because the road route was obstructed by snow and challenging terrain. The Jacques unequivocally refused permission multiple times. Despite these refusals, Steenberg's manager ordered employees to plow a path across the Jacques' snow-covered field and to block the Jacques' view while the mobile home was dragged across the land. The mobile home was successfully delivered via this unauthorized route. The Jacques sued for intentional trespass. A jury awarded the Jacques $1 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court set aside the punitive damages under a common-law rule requiring compensatory damages as a predicate to punitive damages, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
May a plaintiff recover punitive damages for an intentional trespass to land when the jury awards only nominal damages and no compensatory damages, and does the $100,000 punitive award violate due process?
Under Wisconsin law, punitive damages may be awarded upon clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted maliciously toward the plaintiff or in an intentional disregard of the plaintiff's rights (see Wis. Stat. § 895.85). In cases of intentional trespass to land, nominal damages suffice to support an award of punitive damages, even in the absence of compensatory damages. The size of a punitive damages award must comply with due process as guided by the reprehensibility of the misconduct, the ratio between punitive and actual or nominal damages (not dispositive when only nominal damages are awarded), and the comparison to civil or criminal sanctions for similar conduct (BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore).
Yes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that punitive damages are available for intentional trespass to land even when only nominal damages are awarded, and it reinstated the jury's $100,000 punitive damages award. The punitive award did not violate due process.
The court began by emphasizing that the right to exclude others is fundamental to property ownership and that intentional trespass invades this right even when no measurable economic loss occurs. Limiting recovery to nominal damages would insufficiently protect property rights and would effectively license intentional trespassers to treat nominal awards as a mere cost of doing business. Punitive damages deter willful invasions by placing a meaningful price on disrespect for the right to exclude and thereby align legal remedies with the high value the law places on property rights. Turning to Wisconsin law, the court recognized a historical common-law rule that generally required compensatory damages as a predicate for punitive damages but carved out an exception for intentional trespass. It reconciled this with Wis. Stat. § 895.85, concluding that the statute's requirement of malicious or intentional disregard is satisfied by Steenberg's conduct: repeated requests for permission were denied; nonetheless, managers ordered employees to trespass and attempted to conceal it. The evidence demonstrated a willful, deliberate, and contemptuous disregard for the Jacques' rights. Addressing due process limits from BMW v. Gore, the court applied the guideposts. First, reprehensibility was high: Steenberg's conduct was intentional, persistent in the face of explicit refusals, and deceptive (employees blocked the view). Second, the ratio between punitive and nominal damages—100,000 to 1—was not dispositive because nominal damages function to vindicate a dignitary and property-rights interest that does not lend itself to quantification. Where compensatory damages are nominal by design, a strict ratio analysis would eviscerate deterrence. Third, comparable sanctions for similar conduct (criminal trespass and fines) exist but are inadequate to deter willful business decisions to trespass for convenience; the punitive award, while substantial, was not out of line given the need for deterrence. The court also rejected Steenberg's implicit claim of necessity, finding that mere inconvenience or cost savings due to snow-obstructed roads does not create a privilege to trespass. Accordingly, the punitive award was reinstated.
Jacque is a leading case that elevates the practical enforcement of the right to exclude by authorizing punitive damages for intentional trespass even absent compensable harm. It is frequently taught to demonstrate how remedies safeguard non-economic interests and deter calculated invasions of legal rights. The case also provides a concrete application of the Supreme Court's punitive damages due process framework when only nominal damages are awarded. For law students, Jacque illustrates: (1) the doctrinal interplay between Property and Torts in intentional trespass; (2) the policy function of punitive damages in protecting core property rights; (3) how courts calibrate punitive awards under BMW v. Gore when the injury is dignitary or nonpecuniary; and (4) the limits of defenses like necessity when a trespass is motivated by convenience rather than true emergency.
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes reaffirms that the right to exclude is a core attribute of ownership that deserves robust protection through the remedial system. By allowing punitive damages in intentional trespass cases supported only by nominal damages, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ensured that willful invasions of property carry meaningful deterrents even when economic harm is difficult or impossible to quantify.