Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc., 209 Wis. 2d 605, 563 N.W.2d 154 (Wis. 1997)
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes is a cornerstone case in Property and Torts curricula because it squarely confronts the value of the right to exclude—often described as one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of property rights—and the remedial structure needed to protect that right.
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.
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.