Assignment 2
To: Assignment Grader
From: Nicole Rivero
Date: 7/26/15

In this case John owns a zinc mine and Dana owns a zinc mine next door. John is mining zinc from underneath his own property. Unbeknownst to him, as he is mining, he and his employees cross the area under the border between his land and Dana’s so that John is mining beneath Dana’s land. After doing this for a week, Dana tells John that he is beneath her land. John realizes she is correct and immediately stops his mining activities. Dana sues John for trespass to land.

John claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not conduct any activity that is above ground on Dana’s land. Although John did not conduct activity above ground, in trespass to land a person's property is considered to extend to the center of the earth in the downward direction. Therefore, John is liable for trespass to land as he did unlawfully enter her property even though it was underground.

John next claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not intentionally mine under Dana’s land. In Sandlin v. Webb, 240 S.W.2d 69, the appellees began mining business on land adjoining Sandlin's. The appellees employed a mine foreman to take care of the underground work as well as a mining engineer, to lay out the mine, make surveys and direct the operations. The mining engineer furnished the appellees with maps showing the extent of the underground operations and in turn the appelless would give the map to the mine foreman to guide him. A map was furnished to the appellees in this manner on March 20, 1948. At that time the mine work was proceeding directly toward Sandlin's property line and was about 200 feet away. Eventually, the mining engineer made another survey and discovered that the mine had been driven onto Sandlin's property similarly to our case with John and Dana.

In