MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. v. Hagan
74 So. 3d 1148
La.2011Background
- MCI owned an underground fiber-optic cable that was severed on property owned by Hagan; the backhoe operator, Joubert, acted with Hagan's permission.
- The cable was buried partially under Hagan's land; MCI had contractual rights to keep the cable but no servitude over the land.
- The district court ruled MCI had no servitude and dismissed its trespass claims; it awarded fees under the Damage Prevention Act to Hagan/Joubert.
- MCI requested a jury instruction on trespass asserting that an inadvertent trespass may result from an intentional act; the district court refused.
- The Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking whether the proposed trespass instruction correctly states Louisiana law under these facts; the Court answered in the negative.
- Louisiana law requires a movables-based trespass claim to be grounded in possessory rights or statutory negligence frameworks, not a generalized inadvertent-trespass theory for underground cables on land without a servitude.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the proposed trespass instruction correct where an underground cable on immovable land has no servitude? | MCI argues trespass to chattels; intent is to perform the act. | No servitude; no possessory interest; trespass to chattels not recognized. | Not correct; no trespass to chattels under these facts. |
| Does Louisiana recognize a trespass to chattels allowing inadvertent trespass from an intentional act? | Yes; inadvertent harm can follow intentional act. | No; movables require intentional intermeddling or different tort theory. | Not recognized; remedy lies in delictual negligence or other doctrines. |
| Did MCI have possessory interest in the property to support a trespass claim? | Yes, via contractual rights to keep the cable. | No servitude; no possessory interest in immovable. | No possessory interest; no trespass to immovable property. |
| Does the Damage Prevention Act create strict liability for underground-cable damage? | Statutory violation causes liability independent of fault. | Violation informs negligence analysis rather than strict liability. | Statutory violation leads to negligence-based delict, not strict liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dual Drilling Co. v. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc., 721 So.2d 853 (La. 1998) (civil-law remedies protect movables without adopting common-law conversion)
- BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Eustis Engineering Co., Inc., 974 So.2d 749 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2007) (damages under negligence framework for underground facilities)
- Harrison v. Petroleum Surveys, Inc., 80 So.2d 153 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1955) (trespass cases involving land ownership/possession; distinguishable from movables)
- Terre Aux Boeufs Land Co. v. J.R. Gray Barge Co., 803 So.2d 86 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2001) (trespass/possession distinctions in Louisiana)