Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910)
Facts: Defendant's ship was moored at Plaintiff's dock during a storm, which cause some $500 in damages to the dock.
Procedure: Jury trial court found for the plaintiff.
Issue: Does necessity defense apply?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: Yes, there was necessity, but they should still pay because their act caused the damages (sort of no-fault-ish). It was calculated to save the ship at the expense of the dock, and the expense of the dock will be paid.
Showing posts with label necessity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label necessity. Show all posts
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Ploof v. Putnam
Ploof v. Putnam
81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188 (1908)
Facts: A storm came up on Lake Champlain, and the plaintiff moored his boat on the defendant's dock. The defendant through his servant unmoored the boat, which destroyed the boat and harmed the plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff claims that necessity made his mooring not a trespass, and that defendant shouldn't have unmoored him.
Procedure: Not clear.
Issue: Was there a trespass?
Holding: No, so the unmooring was therefore not a defense of property.
Reasoning: Necessity, especially to preserve lives, certainly allows people to pass onto a property without trespass.
81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188 (1908)
Facts: A storm came up on Lake Champlain, and the plaintiff moored his boat on the defendant's dock. The defendant through his servant unmoored the boat, which destroyed the boat and harmed the plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff claims that necessity made his mooring not a trespass, and that defendant shouldn't have unmoored him.
Procedure: Not clear.
Issue: Was there a trespass?
Holding: No, so the unmooring was therefore not a defense of property.
Reasoning: Necessity, especially to preserve lives, certainly allows people to pass onto a property without trespass.
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Ins. Co.
Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Ins. Co.
479 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1991)
Facts: In an attempt to flush out a suspect, cops tore up Wegner's house pretty bad. Wegner sued both the city and Milwaukee Mutual to recover damages for the destruction.
Procedure: Trial court and then appellate...
Issue: Does the necessity defense apply?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: The defense is a common law one, while the statute requiring recovery is a statute and therefore controlling.
479 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1991)
Facts: In an attempt to flush out a suspect, cops tore up Wegner's house pretty bad. Wegner sued both the city and Milwaukee Mutual to recover damages for the destruction.
Procedure: Trial court and then appellate...
Issue: Does the necessity defense apply?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: The defense is a common law one, while the statute requiring recovery is a statute and therefore controlling.
Surocco v. Geary
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)