Surocco v. Geary
3 Cal. 69 (1853)
Facts: Geary, acting for the city of San Fransisco, blew up Surocco's house to make a fire break "in the conflagration then raging." Plaintiff was removing his goods prior to this and could have continued if not for being stopped by the destruction of his house.
Procedure: Trial court found for plaintiffs.
Issue: Can a person be held liable for acting out of necessity?
Holding: Not if necessity is clearly shown.
Reasoning: The well-being of the city is of more import than the individual's property rights, but this necessity must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment