IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION [Division No.]
THE THREE BEARS,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, Court of Appeal No. B___________
v. Superior Court No. _____________
GOLDILOCKS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a Judgment [or Order]
of the Superior Court, County of [County Name]
Hon. [Judge’s name], Judge
[BRIEF NAME]
[Attorney or Party Name]
State Bar No. [if any]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Telephone Phone Number]
[E-mail Address]
Attorney for Appellant
GOLDILOCKS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 4
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5
ARGUMENT
I. GOLDILOCKS WAS GIVEN IMPLIED CONSENT
TO ENTER THE HOUSE AND THUS HER ENTRY
WAS NOT "WRONGFUL" 7
A. The Standard of Review 7
B. Elements of the Action 7
C. No Evidence of Wrongful Entry 8
CONCLUSION 8
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 9
PROOF OF SERVICE 10
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page
Gallin v. Poulou
(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 638 7
Miller v National Broadcasting Co.
(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463 7
Williams v. General Elec. Credit Corp.
(1946) 159 Cal.App.2d 527 7
Williams v. Wraxall
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120 7
STATUTES (if any)
OTHER
Code of Civil Procedure, section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1) 5
Restatement 2nd of Torts, section 167 7
5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) 7
3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION [Division No.]
THE THREE BEARS,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
Court of Appeal No.
v. B___________
GOLDILOCKS,
Defendant and Appellant. Superior Court No.
_____________
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Three Bears filed a complaint in August 2001 alleging
Goldilocks had trespassed on their property by entering their home
when they were not at home, consuming a meal and falling asleep in a
bed. The complaint alleged that Baby Bear had suffered physical and
mental damages as a result of being frightened upon discovering
Goldilocks. (CT 1-4.) After a civil trial on the matter over a period of
two days, the court found that Goldilocks had committed trespass.
4
(CT 25.) The court entered a final judgment in favor of the Three
Bears in the amount of $50,000. (CT 27.)
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
This appeal is from the judgment of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court and is authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure,
section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Papa Bear lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, Mama
Bear and son, Baby Bear. (RT 1.) Appellant Goldilocks lives a few
miles away on the other side of the forest. (RT 25.) The Bears'
neighbor, Gloria Gardner, watched what happened from her garden
next door. (RT 15.)
Gardner testified she saw the Bear family leave their house
without shutting the front door about 8:00 a.m. and saw Goldilocks
enter the house at about 8:30. At about 9:30 a.m. she heard
screams and saw Goldilocks run from the Bears' house. (RT 17.)
The Bears testified that when they returned from the walk,
they saw they had left the front door open. (RT 3.) Food was
missing from the dining room table. (RT 4.) Baby Bear found
Goldilocks asleep in his bed. (RT 6.) Terrified, Baby Bear
screamed and woke up Goldilocks. (RT 9.) Startled and confused,
Goldilocks ran from the Bears' house. (RT 30.)
An expert bear cub psychologist, Dr. Dramatic, who has done
extensive research in the phobias of young bears, testified to the
traumatic effects when a bear cub comes in contact with a human
child. Baby Bear had physical symptoms of blackouts stemming from
his encounter with Goldilocks as well as mental anguish requiring
5
therapy. (RT 21-24.)
Goldilocks testified she was looking for a boarding facility to
take a rest, the Bears' house was very large, there was no fence to
indicate this was private property, the door of the house was left open
and there was a mat at the front door that said "WELCOME". (RT
25-26.) She thought this was a commercial boarding establishment,
as large amounts of food were set out as if for guests; she looked for
someone to ask about spending the night and saw several sets of
chairs and beds all in different sizes. (RT 27-28.) She sat down on a
bed and fell asleep. (RT 29.)
6
ARGUMENT
I. GOLDILOCKS WAS GIVEN IMPLIED
CONSENT TO ENTER THE HOUSE AND THUS
HER ENTRY WAS NOT "WRONGFUL"
A. The Standard of Review.
The trial court erred in finding that Goldilocks trespassed on the
Bears' property as there is no substantial evidence to support that
finding. On review, the appellate court looks to the record to see if
there are facts to support the trial court or jury's findings. If there is
any substantial evidence to support the verdict, the court will affirm.
If there are conflicts in the facts, the court will resolve the conflict in
favor of the party who won in the trial court. (Williams v. Wraxall
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 132.)
B . The Elements of the Action.
A trespass occurs when a person intentionally, recklessly or
negligently enters land in the possession of another. (Gallin v.
Poulou (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 638, 645.) The intent to enter is the
only intent needed. (Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. (1986) 187
Cal.App.3d 1463, 1480.) However, consent or permission to enter
upon the property is a defense. (Williams v. General Elec. Credit
Corp. (1946) 159 Cal.App.2d 527, 532; 5 Witkin, Summary of
California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 607, p. 706; Rest.2d Torts, §
167.)
7
C . No Evidence of Wrongful Entry.
Here, Goldilocks did not intend to enter on private property.
She thought the Bears' house was a public, commercial boarding
house. Although her actual intent is not a legal defense, her actual
intent reinforces her argument that she had consent to enter the
building. The door was open, the WELCOME mat was out, the food
was on the table, and there were many beds and chairs about. All of
this points to the conclusion the Bears were prepared for and awaiting
the arrival of numerous persons and supports Goldilocks' belief this
was a boarding house and there was no reason for her not to enter. At
a minimum the house was prepared and open for an "open house". No
evidence points to any indication the house was closed, off-limits to
outsiders, or limited in the types of persons who would be admitted.
There is no evidence to support a finding Goldilocks' entry was
wrongful. The judgment must be reversed.
CONCLUSION
Goldilocks submits the Three Bears have failed to meet their
burden of proving that her entry into their house was wrongful and,
thus, a trespass. All of the evidence supports a finding that the Bears
by their conduct consented to Goldilocks' entry. Goldilocks
respectfully asks that this Court reverse the decision of the trial court
and vacate the award of damages.
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney Name]
Attorney for Appellant
GOLDILOCKS
8
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to rule 8.204(c) of the California Rules of Court, I
hereby certify that this brief contains words, including
footnotes. In making this certification, I have relied on the word
count of the computer program used to prepare the brief.
By ______________________________
[Name]
9
PROOF OF SERVICE
10
