Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc. Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1997. Facts: Steenberg Homes (Steenberg) (defendant) sold a mobile home to a neighbor of the Jacques (plaintiffs). Because of snow on the nearest town road, the easiest way for Steenberg to deliver the mobile home was over the Jacques’ property. However, the Jacques refused to grant Steenberg permission to do so. Steenberg proceeded to deliver the mobile home across the Jacques’ property anyway. The Jacques notified the sheriff, and Steenberg was issued a $30 citation. Procedural History: The Jacques also sued Steenberg. At trial, the jury awarded the Jacques $1 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. However, the circuit court set aside the award of $100,000 because there was a requirement of compensatory damages in order for punitive damages to be awarded, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Jacques appealed. Issue: Can punitive damages be awarded without compensatory damages in intentional trespass cases? Holding: Yes, reversed the judgment of the lower courts and reinstated the punitive damage award. Reasoning: Punitive damages may, at the discretion of the jury, be awarded when there are only nominal and no compensatory damages. The general rule in Wisconsin is that punitive damages are unavailable if unsupported by compensatory damages. Barnard v. Cohen, 165 Wis. 417, 162 N.W.2d 480 (1917). The rationale for this is simply that society’s interest in deterring unlawful but unharmful conduct is not great enough to warrant punitive damages. Nevertheless, the question of whether punitive damages are available when supported by a nominal damage award for intentional trespass has not been answered. The actual harm here is not in any physical damage to the land, but in the denial of the owner's legal right to exclude all others. The right to exclude is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). A right is illusory if it is unenforceable. Further, repeated trespasses could actually threaten the individual’s ownership by giving the trespasser rights by prescription or adverse possession. An exception to Barnard is warranted in cases of intentional trespass. Punitive damages serve as a deterrent to illegal activity where the damages are greater than the profit to be gained by that misconduct. Here, Steenberg intentionally trespassed on the Jacques’ property, and the Jacques must be entitled to relief. If Steenberg were forced to pay only the $30 citation and $1 in nominal damages, there would be nothing compelling Steenberg to abide by the law the next time a similar situation arises. Therefore, as both a punishment and a deterrent, punitive damages in this case are warranted.