319 Mich. 661, 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948)
Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners is a staple of first-year Torts and Property courses because it crystallizes the concept of "continuing trespass" when a lawful, consented-to entry morphs into an unlawful invasion after the privilege expires.
Does a public entity that lawfully entered land under a time-limited license commit a trespass—and face liability for resulting injuries—when it fails to remove an object placed on the land after the license expires, notwithstanding its governmental status?
A licensee who enters another's land with consent for a limited purpose and time must, upon expiration of that privilege, remove chattels placed there and restore the premises. Failure to do so transforms the lawful entry into a continuing trespass, rendering the actor liable for harm proximately caused by the unauthorized remaining presence of the object. Consent negates trespass only within its scope and duration; once the license ends, continued presence or failure to remove constitutes an unlawful invasion. Governmental status does not bar liability for ministerial negligence or for maintaining a continuing trespass.
Yes. The Board's failure to remove the stake after the seasonal license expired constituted a continuing trespass, and its negligent omission could subject it to liability for the decedent's resulting injuries. Governmental immunity did not bar the claim under these circumstances.
Rogers is a leading case on continuing trespass and the temporal limits of consent. It teaches that consent is not an all-purpose defense; it is bounded by scope and duration, and it carries a concomitant duty to restore the premises when the privilege ends. The decision is frequently cited for the proposition that leaving a chattel on another's land after a license expires is itself a trespass that continues until removal, exposing the actor to liability for ensuing harms. The case also shows how tort and property principles intersect when public actors place or leave objects on private land. For law students, it provides a clean framework for analyzing consent, trespass, and governmental liability, and it serves as a model for exam scenarios involving licenses, failure to remove, hidden hazards, and the line between discretionary immunity and ministerial negligence.