State v. Shack case brief summary
New Jersey law
Facts: Shack, attorney, and Tejeras, farm worker, enter the lands of Tedesco to benefit the workers who live on Tedesco’s farm. Tedesco argues that they were not allowed to enter the lands even though one of his workers was sick and needed medical attention. Tedesco sued for trespass.
Decision: Reversed and remanded in favor of defendants.
Reasoning: Everyone has a right to their own property as long as they do not hurt anyone else’s rights. Here, if medical attention was not given, the worker would have been seriously harmed and hurt. The workers also do not realize that they do, in fact, have rights and this is in favor of property owner but makes a community worse off. So while landowners have a right to defend their land, it should not end with others being harmed by that right. Anyone who has a right to be there for an employee’s benefit will be allowed to be on the premises, even reporters.
Facts: Shack, attorney, and Tejeras, farm worker, enter the lands of Tedesco to benefit the workers who live on Tedesco’s farm. Tedesco argues that they were not allowed to enter the lands even though one of his workers was sick and needed medical attention. Tedesco sued for trespass.
Decision: Reversed and remanded in favor of defendants.
Reasoning: Everyone has a right to their own property as long as they do not hurt anyone else’s rights. Here, if medical attention was not given, the worker would have been seriously harmed and hurt. The workers also do not realize that they do, in fact, have rights and this is in favor of property owner but makes a community worse off. So while landowners have a right to defend their land, it should not end with others being harmed by that right. Anyone who has a right to be there for an employee’s benefit will be allowed to be on the premises, even reporters.
No comments:
Post a Comment