We are left still to define autonomy by inference. An actual definition would be useful. I think in the end the talk of the possessor's autonomy means primarily that there is no "efficient breach" concept in the law of trespass. But it's a little hard to make out what the "autonomy" interest in possession is, given that the State or its delegates can acquire not only possession but ownership by paying fair market value in condemnation.

Jacque doesn't seem to me so apposite a case as you assert. There is no issue about whether there was trespass, but rather about the availability of damages without proof of fault, indeed of a punitive character. Whether punitive damages are available in trespass is surely not the same as whether rights to exclude are limited by a doctrine of "efficient trespass," about which it seems to me that the case has nothing to say. (is it not odd that, according to your account, plaintiff claims that permitted use can lead to adverse possession? That's simply incorrect, is it not?)

Why does whether one court is right or wrong in one case matter? I think the purpose of the essay is to make a point about the difference between possessor and contractual rights, with which it is possible you are disagreeing, but if so for reasons of which after multiple readings I am still unsure.

The Normative Value of Autonomy in Property Law and its Alternative

Functional advantage of Social Dependence

Autonomy in Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

Using Social Dependence as an Alternative in Jacque v. Steenberg Homes

Case Analysis

The court seems to neglect autonomy or deem it as unimportant when utilitarian concerns can be justly presented without legal conceptual justifications. In Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, the court in presenting a utilitarians argument on airplanes inability to pay landowners everytime it fly over, dismissed autonomy as deserving retribution if violated, in complete contradiction to the holy status of autonomy esteemed in Jacque v. Steenberg Homes. Autonomy sacrifice for the general good.

In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court embraces the lawmaking power though it’s not supposed to, and argues that extending conversion would be problematic, therefore due to concerns for disincentivizing investment in research due to potential exposure to liability, autonomy should not be considered. respect for dignity and autonomy manifests in and requires recognition of property rights, the court here sacrifices these values for immediate economic benefits.

In Midler v. Ford Motor Company, court argues that autonomy, personhood, and identity are the basis of the property protection, but the ultimate ruling is disconnected, as there’s no connection between the normative values of personhood/autonomy and the final ruling, imitations are still allowed without commercial purpose. The court imposes two utilitarian limitations that have no connection to autonomy on the recognition of property rights; ironically, the limitations of autonomy make it a workable doctrine.

Even more ironically, sometimes when it’s time to determine and balance autonomy between two parties, the court will just avoid the question and leave the issue convoluted. In Ploof v. Putnam, two theories for recovery were presented, trespass, which structures around property law’s autonomy; and negligence, which around tort law’s duty of care, the court just refused to answer the question as framed by the plaintiff and didn’t signal which theory Plaintiff's recovery is based on. Autonomy here is purposefully avoided by the court in order to render a just ruling.

When it comes to dead hand control, the court is highly skeptical as to the amount of leeway and deference that is afforded to property owners when they are dead, so the court uses autonomy as a way to argue that dead people don’t have autonomy. In Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co, the court does not say the value of autonomy cannot be morally applied to dead people, but engages in lawmaking as it invalidates provisions of the will in the name of public policy. The court here sacrifices the autonomy interest of people when making their wills to further public policy concerns.

When autonomy is strictly followed, ridiculous results occur. The court applied autonomy in its absolute sense in Pile v. Pedrick, where autonomy was given absolute value, the court deferred to the whims of the plaintiff, no matter how ridiculously unnecessary and wasteful the remedy is. While if the court took utilitarianism into consideration, such wasteful ruling could be avoided. Autonomy works differently when it is applied to states as supposed to citizens. In Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, the state owned land intended for sale and the land was held in trust for the people of the state. The court correctly applied the normative value of autonomy. But in this case autonomy is actually sovereignty. Sovereignty recognizes supremacy and operates between political organizations, property is subordinate to/subject to the dictates of sovereignty and captures interaction between the sovereign state and the property owner and between property owners. The court here sacrificed property and autonomy rights of the company to preserve the sovereignty rights of the state. Autonomy is applied to the sovereign but not the individual actor.

Conclusion

Outdataed Normative Value

Social Dependence in replacement

Case demonstration - using autonomy

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes highlights the irrational nature of ruling for the sake of autonomy. To deliver mobile homes, Steenberg Homes could either cross Jacque’s land or take a snow-covered private road that would require special equipment. Jacque declined the request to cross their land due to land loss in an adverse possession action. The defendant nonetheless cut across the plaintiff's property because it was easier/cheaper than navigating the private road. The court awarded 100,000 dollars to the stubborn plaintiff who treated the defendant with heartless indifference, relying on autonomy. The court first used a deck clearing move to rid the authoritative weight of precedents so it can deem this a new legal issue and reason without the restrictions of binding authority. The authoritative law in the state was Barnard v. Cohen, pertaining to libel, where the court states the general rule of punitive damage: society has little interest in having the unlawful yet harmless conduct deterred, therefore, punitive damages are inappropriate when no harm is done. The court’s fear of propagation of unpunished intentional trespass, however, overrides this sensible and economically efficient law; therefore the court finds the difference in subject matter sufficient to warrant its inapplicability, and ignores the perfectly applicable reasoning behind the law. Since the court is now rid of persuasive precedents by a misleading rationale, it now can use whatever authority it pleases to further its goals. It then sites Merest v. Harvey, a decision from the English Common pleas division 150 years ago as persuasive precedent, stating that behaviors unbecoming of a gentleman warrants large damages. This outdated and outmoded rationale predominantly lies behind the court’s decision to award punitive damages, the rationale being when a man does not accord himself gentlemanlike, damages are proper. However, Merest is a case about hunting and obnoxious behaviors, not pure trespass like Jacque, the court conveniently rids the subject matter consistency it values and relies on it nonetheless. The court proceeds to conclude that in light of private and social interest, intentional trespass cases, although actual harm might be minimal, individuals suffer from a loss of their rights to exclude, which warrants large damage awards. The court here invokes the sacred and natural right of autonomy, and deems it so sacred that trampling on it even without loss of monetary value deserves retribution. The inconsistency of subject matter valuing at display is prominent, the court equates the duty to behave gentlemanly with the right to exclude, and misleads that this decision is consistent with Merest’s rationale, therefore punitive damage is applicable to both. The stark difference is that Merest was about an obnoxious English parliament member who invited himself to the plaintiff’s shooting space and fired shots while disregarding the plaintiff’s rejection, while Jacque was about a difficult choice presented to the defendant of either breaking the law and save a great amount of money or incur unnecessary cost for the sake of not offending a stubborn neighbor. Nevertheless, the court reasoned that the two cases should be treated in the same light and both called for punitive damages.

Perhaps because the court knows the faulty logic is not persuasive, it goes into the analysis of the previously mentioned private and public interest, in hope that the slippery slope argument it uses presents an persuasive rationale that could ameliorate the lack of consistency. The court states that social and private interests in punishing and deterring intentional trespasses to preserve the integrity of and people’s faith in the legal system is so strong, that all hell would break loose if the defendant is not punished. This borderline bad-faith argument is irrational to say the least.

Case demonstration - using Social dependence

I don't understand how this last sentence follows from the definition given. I don't think the proposition you're stating is faulty, but I don't understand the derivation.

This appears to be a conclusion somehow derived from what judges do, but we have as yet no idea how you know what you claim.

You haven't explained anything about the case to which you are referring. Why is there no link?

This is a confusing summary of a case which is again not stated, not linked, not described.

Same problem.

What does this mean?

This draft says things about cases, but there is no analysis to back the conclusions. "Autonomy," which appears to mean the owner's right to do what she wills with her property, is said to be treated by judges as less absolute than some theoretic definition (ungiven) would—while also leading to "ridiculous" outcomes—require.

The first route to improvement, then, is to read the cases, rather than gesture at them. That done, I expect the conclusion you are now merely asserting can be shown to follow. Courts, as you say, cannot and do not actually behave as though the owner's will were absolute: the essence of "property" as a common-law concept is its inherent compromise between protection of expectations and the necessity of "planning" on the ground. Why that should be treated, as the present drafts treats it, as a bug rather than a feature isn't yet clear, but presumably would also emerge from closer contact with actual decisions.

The Normative Value of Autonomy in Property Law

-- By HuazhouYe - 13 Feb 2023

Introduction to Autonomy

Property law is based on the moralistic goal of preserving autonomy, and the court is supposed to further that goal. However, autonomy is completely immaterial in its application. Judges only use autonomy to achieve their policy goals, or to reach a legal decision for other utilitarian purposes. When they do not need autonomy to achieve their goals, they don’t mention it. Additionally, when autonomy is strictly followed, horrible results occur, and autonomy works differently when it is applied to states as supposed to citizens.

Autonomy as Bait

The court seems to neglect autonomy or deem it as unimportant when utilitarian concerns can be justly presented without legal conceptual justifications. In Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, the court in presenting a utilitarians argument on airplanes inability to pay landowners everytime it fly over, dismissed autonomy as deserving retribution if violated, in complete contradiction to the holy status of autonomy esteemed in Jacque v. Steenberg Homes. Autonomy sacrifice for the general good.

In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court embraces the lawmaking power though it’s not supposed to, and argues that extending conversion would be problematic, therefore due to concerns for disincentivizing investment in research due to potential exposure to liability, autonomy should not be considered. respect for dignity and autonomy manifests in and requires recognition of property rights, the court here sacrifices these values for immediate economic benefits.

In Midler v. Ford Motor Company, court argues that autonomy, personhood, and identity are the basis of the property protection, but the ultimate ruling is disconnected, as there’s no connection between the normative values of personhood/autonomy and the final ruling, imitations are still allowed without commercial purpose. The court imposes two utilitarian limitations that have no connection to autonomy on the recognition of property rights; ironically, the limitations of autonomy make it a workable doctrine.

Even more ironically, sometimes when it’s time to determine and balance autonomy between two parties, the court will just avoid the question and leave the issue convoluted. In Ploof v. Putnam, two theories for recovery were presented, trespass, which structures around property law’s autonomy; and negligence, which around tort law’s duty of care, the court just refused to answer the question as framed by the plaintiff and didn’t signal which theory Plaintiff's recovery is based on. Autonomy here is purposefully avoided by the court in order to render a just ruling.

When it comes to dead hand control, the court is highly skeptical as to the amount of leeway and deference that is afforded to property owners when they are dead, so the court uses autonomy as a way to argue that dead people don’t have autonomy. In Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co, the court does not say the value of autonomy cannot be morally applied to dead people, but engages in lawmaking as it invalidates provisions of the will in the name of public policy. The court here sacrifices the autonomy interest of people when making their wills to further public policy concerns.

Autonomy Strictly Applied

When autonomy is strictly followed, ridiculous results occur. The court applied autonomy in its absolute sense in Pile v. Pedrick, where autonomy was given absolute value, the court deferred to the whims of the plaintiff, no matter how ridiculously unnecessary and wasteful the remedy is. While if the court took utilitarianism into consideration, such wasteful ruling could be avoided.

Autonomy in Sovereignty

Conclusion

Courts can broaden/narrow the time frame of autonomy, expand/shorten the scope of autonomy, embrace/avoid the application of autonomy, construct which parties deserve more/less autonomy, and interpret autonomy in its absolute/meticulously limited sense. The variety of ways of interpreting and applying the normative value of autonomy leaves the court great room for policy making, and that seems like what the court is conducting. Autonomy as a concept, however, either is used as a scapegoat for utilitarian values or deeply unsatisfactory when applied in an absolutist sense.