Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I can't for the life of me figure out what the speakers of those two phrases might have meant when they said "was infringed upon us." I believe that you are correctly noting that infringe, used either as a transitive or intransitive verb, usually is followed by an object that is not (or a preposition whose object is not) a person. However, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., defines infringe in one intransitive sense as "To encroach on someone or something" (emphasis mine). Yet two problems with the way you heard it persist in my mind. First, the passive sense in which the speakers used it makes no sense ("This person was infringed upon (read: was encroached upon) us"?), even if the American Heritage definition were in popular usage. The only thing I can come up with is that their use of infringe was a malaprop for impose; I can't make sense of it any other way. Second, one dictionary's definition notwithstanding, I'm with you in never hearing infringe used in the way you heard it. I always think of infringe as referring to a thing, whether it be a right, a law, or a property, to name a few examples. I would've been taken aback hearing the two speakers say it the way you heard it as well.

On another, related note, infringe is often confused with impinge, but that confusion would no better explain the strange construction you heard. (By the way, I'm not entirely certain why I posted, since I had nothing to offer on the subject, but I hope it was informative, nonetheless.)