And you think you're bored?

This has been my evening:

Affirmative Defenses
FRCP 8(c)

Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
- WsW?: Layman suing SBTC for trespass
o Appealing b/c easement raised at trial, after general denial, not as an affirmative defense
- Facts:
o ∏ Layman, 2 counts in petition
• 1. She was owner of property in Jeff. Co. Missouri
• 2. Δ’s had trespassed on land to install telephone wires without her consent
o She lost the suit, appeals
• She further contends that Δ’s continued to enter to maintain wires and cables
o ∏ asks for $7500 in loss to property value, and $2000 punitive damages for willful and forceful nature of acts by Δ
o *∏ received title in 1956
o 1973 she sees someone digging on the land, ∏ says it decreased value from $35k to $20k
o Δ Southwestern Bell (and Wright Tree Service) say SB received an easement from original owners dated 1946
o
o *****∏ argues that TC should not have permitted SB to introduce evidence of an easement at trial b/c it made a general denial and did not raise the issue as an affirmative defense.
- Issue:
o Whether a right of entry by easement is an affirmative defense in an action for trespass.
- Holding:
o ∏’s objection to the introduction of evidence of easement should be sustained
o Judgment reversed, remanded for new trial
- Reasoning:
o Rule 55.08 [similar to FRCP 8(c)] specifies “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”
• Although easement is not expressly in the rule, it pretty much is there [license is there]
o Test applied is whether Δ intends to rest his defense upon some fact not included in the allegation necessary to support the ∏’s case.
• Δ can admit facts that could sustain ∏’s theory, but they don’t apply to it because of additional facts which place the Δ in a position to avoid any legal responsibility for its action, then such a defense must be set forth in his answer.
o *It is the obligation of the Δ in an action for trespass to affirmatively plead and prove it was justified