From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...
MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Hagan
Louisiana Supreme Court
74 So. 3d 1148 (2011)
Facts
Wayne Hagan and James Joubert (defendants) wanted to go duck hunting on an airboat that they planned to launch onto a waterway from a boat ramp on Hagan’s property. There was driftwood around the boat ramp, however, and Joubert used a backhoe to clear the debris. While operating the backhoe, Joubert inadvertently cut an underground cable owned by MCI Communications Services, Inc. (MCI) (plaintiff). MCI’s right to keep its cable on Hagan’s land arose from an agreement MCI had made with a previous owner of the property. MCI sued Hagan and Joubert in federal court for negligence and trespass for the damage to its cable. MCI asked the district court to give an instruction to the jury that stated that a defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass to movable property resulting from an intentional act. The district court refused to give MCI’s requested jury instruction and also found that MCI did not have a servitude over or any possessory interest in Hagan’s land. The jury eventually found for Hagan and Joubert. MCI appealed, alleging among other claims that the district court erred in refusing to give its requested jury instruction. The federal court of appeal sought certification from the Louisiana Supreme Court to determine whether MCI’s requested jury instruction was in fact a substantially correct statement of Louisiana law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Guidry, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
