If someone trespasses on your real property, you can recover damages even where those damages are only nominal in amount. Sime v. Jensen, 213 Minn. 476, 481, 7 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Minn. 1942). A more recent decision follows the same rule: you are entitled to nominal damages for a trespass even where no actual damage to the land has been done. Lake Mille Lacs Invest., Inc. v. Payne, 401 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).

General Compensatory Damages

There is no single measure of compensatory damages for trespass and related injury to your real property. The measure depends on the nature of the harm:

  1. Diminution in the value of the land. For the destruction of trees and shrubbery, the Minnesota Supreme Court has “declined to depart from the traditional measure of damages.” Baillon v. Carl Bolander & Sons Co., 306 Minn. 155, 235 N.W.2d 613 (Minn. 1975).
  2. The reasonable cost of repair or restoration. This is an alternative measure where it is reasonable and practical. For example, where trees and shrubbery “have aesthetic value to the owner as ornamental and shade trees or for purposes of screening sound and providing privacy, replacement cost may be considered to the extent that the cost is reasonable and practical.” Rector, Wardens & Vestry of St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 306 Minn. 143, 235 N.W.2d 609, 611 (Minn. 1975).
  3. The reasonable rental value of the property. Where damage to land is a temporary or continuing injury, “the measure of damages is the diminution of the rental value of the land until the time of trial.” Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781, 789 (Minn. 1989).
  4. Mesne profits. These are “a sum recovered for the value or benefit which a person in wrongful possession has derived from his wrongful occupation of the land between the time when he acquired wrongful possession and the time when possession was taken from him.” Martin v. Smith, 214 Minn. 9, 13-14, 7 N.W.2d 481, 483 (Minn. 1942).

The four measures above are a synthesis of distinct lines of authority, not a single controlling four-part trespass framework, so match the measure to the kind of injury you suffered.

Pain and Suffering

Trespass requires only an unlawful entry upon another’s rightful possession. Whether the defendant’s conduct while on your premises proximately caused your injuries is a fact question for the jury.

In Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998), an undercover WCCO employee posing as a volunteer secretly videotaped activities at residential and nonresidential care facilities for persons with developmental disabilities, and the footage was later broadcast. A claimant, St. Angelo, claimed loss of reputation, embarrassment, and emotional distress. The Minnesota Court of Appeals declined to decide whether a plaintiff may enhance trespass damages by reference to the broadcast, stating that “we need not reach this issue because trespass requires only an unlawful entry upon another’s rightful possession; whether a defendant’s conduct while on the premises proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries is a fact issue for the jury.” Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).

Injunctive Relief

You can request, and a Minnesota court can grant, an injunction against a continuing or repeatedly threatened trespass. A continuing trespass may be enjoined or compensated by damages, and injunctive relief is available where damages are inadequate and an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. Lake Mille Lacs Invest., Inc. v. Payne, 401 N.W.2d 387, 390-91 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).

Punitive Damages

If there is proof of willful trespass, punitive damages may be available, but you must satisfy both a substantive standard and a procedural prerequisite.

The substantive standard is set by Minn. Stat. § 549.20, the statute that governs punitive damages in Minnesota. Punitive damages “shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others.” Minn. Stat. § 549.20, subd. 1.

The procedure is set by Minn. Stat. § 549.191: the complaint must not seek punitive damages at filing, and after filing suit a party may move to amend the pleadings to add the claim.

If a trespass is accidental, or the trespasser acted on a good-faith belief that they had a right to occupy the property, then punitive damages would not apply, because neither accidental conduct nor a genuine mistaken belief of right meets the conscious, intentional disregard the statute demands.

(Note: the older citation to Minn. Stat. § 549.19 is incorrect for punitive damages. That section is titled “Neglect to File Security; Prosecution of Bond” and has nothing to do with punitive damages.)

Exemplary Damages

Under Minn. Stat. § 561.04, you can recover treble (triple) damages for the unauthorized cutting, carrying off, girdling, or injuring of wood, underwood, trees, timber, or shrubs on your land. Hay, grass, and similar agricultural products instead fall under a separate treble-damages statute, Minn. Stat. § 548.05, not § 561.04. Section 548.05 covers carrying away, using, or destroying wood, timber, lumber, hay, grass, or other personal property of another.

These statutory treble damages function as a substitute for punitive damages. You cannot recover both treble damages under § 561.04 and punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 549.20 for the same conduct: you must elect between the two remedies. Johnson v. Jensen, 446 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. 1989). The same election principle should apply to treble damages under § 548.05, though Johnson addressed only § 561.04. This is an election of remedies, not a bar on pleading both theories, and the rule comes from case law rather than the treble-damages statutes themselves, which say nothing about punitive damages.