Baker owns a home adjacent to Blackacre, a 2,000 acre farm. Baker discovered that if he cut across the back of Blackacre, he could reach the Interstate highway much quicker than if he used his own driveway. In fact, when Baker used his driveway, the Interstate was 4 miles away. Taking a shortcut through Blackacre cuts three and one-half miles off the trip. Old Macdonald knows that Baker cuts

Question

across his land almost every workday and sometimes on weekends but does not appear to object. Baker has even worn a path over the land. After all, he has been taking the shortcut over Blackacre for the last 23 years. One day, old MacDonald blocks the path being used by Baker and tells him he may no longer cut across Blackacre. Baker files a lawsuit. Who wins? Explain the rights of the parties.

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

This response should be directed toward prescriptive easements. It should conclude that Baker has probably satisfied the elements of a prescriptive easement and his lawsuit should be successful. Baker did not have the right or the authorization to cross Blackacre to get to the Interstate. His use was open, visible and notorious enough to put MacDonald on notice. The use was also actual and exclusive, and peaceful for the 23 years Baker took the shortcut. 22 years would satisfy the statutorily prescribed time, too.