In Daluiso v. Boone (1969) 71 Cal.2d 484, a fence removal case, the court held that "quite apart from any remedy available in a summary action of forcible entry and detainer (Code Civ. Proc., 1159 et seq.), a person in peaceable possession of real property may recover, in an action sounding in tort, damages for injuries to his person and goods caused by the forcible entry of one who is, or claims to be, the lawful owner or possessor and that the forcibly entering defendant's title or right of possession is no defense to such action." The court explained that "by so holding we give effect to the legislative policy of preserving the public peace and recognize that since the act of forcible entry is unlawful (Pen. Code, 418) all of the consequences of an unlawful act should attach to it." (Id. at p. 499.) Further, the court noted " 'it is a general principle that one who is or believes he or she is injured or deprived of what he or she is lawfully entitled to must apply to the state for help. Self help is in conflict with the very idea of the social order. It subjects the weaker to risk of the arbitrary will or mistaken belief of the stronger. Hence the law in general forbids it.' " (Id. at p. 500.) In that case "Shortly after defendant's employees began removing a fence encroaching on defendant's land, plaintiff came upon the scene and asked defendant what was occurring. Upon being informed of defendant's intentions, plaintiff, then 85 years old and ailing with a heart condition, requested defendant to order the work stopped. When defendant refused, a heated verbal exchange between plaintiff and defendant ensued during the course of which plaintiff became very excited and upset. . . . As a result of all this, plaintiff suffered emotional distress followed by physical illness." (Dalusio, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 488.) Dalusio held that the plaintiff's trespass complaint "essentially stated a cause of action for the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress." (Dalusio, at p. 488; see also id. at p. 490, fn. 6 evidence sufficient to find tort occurred and damage award not excessive.)