After Lawful entry to a property, a licensee may act outside of his or her license by performing actions not stipulated within the agreement. For example, in the case of Bond v Kelly (1873), the defendant was found to have committed Tort Trespass to Land when having acted outside his work order.  

The defendant was commissioned to deforest a section of land on the plaintiff’s property, and although was lawfully licensed to enter the property, he’d cut down more trees for lumber than ordered, and thus was guilty of Tort trespass, despite lawfully entering the property.

Law enforcement personnel are subject to unlawful entry charges when entering a property without either a search warrant or witnessing a party for whom there is an outstanding warrant at the property. 

There is no burden of proof regarding damages upon the plaintiff in tort trespassing cases. The defendant need not cause damage to the land, simply be fount to have intentionally entered the land without specific license. Accidentally entering land has been set by precedent to not constitute unlawful entry. 

For example, if a defendant trips and falls onto a property, even though he knows it is not his own property, he is not guilty of trespass so long as he leaves the property within a reasonable amount of time.  The basis of intent, again, remains the act of entering the property itself.  Knowledge of the property’s legal owner, or cases of mistaken ownership or mistaken license are not valid areas of concern in tort Trespass of Land litigation.

The Tortious offense of Intentional Interference with Property is divided amongst three specific charges in the United States’ tort law. All three charges involve the element of intent, which provides that the defendant is of sound mind and acts of his or her own free will and desire. As the charges of Intentional Interference with Property are tort and not criminal charges, the necessity of wrongful intent is not present.  The burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution’s ability to prove intent. The charges of Intentional interference with property include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and the charge of conversion.

Conversion is a tort of strict liability which consists of an intentional act that violates the property ownership and associated rights of another. Conversion is considered a more serious charge than Trespass to Land or Trespass to Chattels. The main difference between the aforementioned property interferences and the interference of conversion is the clear necessity of misuse. One’s property must be deliberately misused by the defender in order to qualify as conversion.

The property tort of Trespass to Land consists of any unauthorized entry onto private property.  The key point in tort litigation of Trespass to Land is the definition of unauthorized. Authorized entry onto land comes in the form of a license, either written or implied. Implied licenses to enter land include uses of public access to land such as sidewalks or front doors. Other licenses include written permission or work order to conduct business on the property as commissioned or approved by the owner.  It is important to note, however, that licensees may still be charged with trespass if they violate the terms of their license or operate outside its terms. 

Conversion is a tort of strict liability which consists of an intentional act that violates the property ownership and associated rights of another. Conversion is considered a more serious charge than Trespass to Land or Trespass to Chattels. The main difference between the aforementioned property interferences and the interference of conversion is the clear necessity of misuse. One’s property must be deliberately misused by the defender in order to qualify as conversion.