Via @JusticeWillett, some Hallowe'en real estate law.
In Haywood v. Carraway, (180 So. 2d 758, La. Ct. App., 1965) plaintiffs sought damages and compensation for mental pain and anguish from the appellees because sometime around September 1959, the defendants' children had vandalized the plaintiffs' beautiful plantation home, known as Belle Helene.
The appellants, who had lost at trial, were unhappy with the amount of damages awarded and attempted to argue on appeal, among other things, that the house was in such a state of disrepair that "the children were justified in thinking it an abandoned ghost house incapable of being damaged."
Responded the court, "That the juveniles may have considered the building a "ghost house" or "haunted house" is of no consequence inasmuch as the intention of a party committing vandalism does not affect the right of recovery of the injured party. Our Civil Code LSA-C.C. Article 2318 makes the parent or tutor liable for the torts of his minor child or ward. That the child may have no intent to do harm does not exonerate the parent or guardian from liability for his torts. We are aware of the tendency on the part of present day society, adults and juveniles alike, to regard immovable property which is unoccupied or not in use by its owner, as common property or property belonging to no one in particular or public property belonging to all. However, we hasten to add, for the benefit of the uninformed who may believe otherwise, that such concept finds no support in our law. Furthermore, we are not aware and have been cited no authority in our law which recognizes or establishes the concept of abandoned immovable property."
Thus, even if you think it's an abandoned haunted house, don't go in and smash it up. Someone might be watching you.