Ploof v. Putnam
71 A. 188 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of private necessity provides a privilege to a person to enter or interfere with the property of another to protect human life or property from serious harm, and the property owner may be liable for damages resulting from their interference with the exercise of this privilege.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Ploof, was sailing on Lake Champlain in a sloop with his wife and two children.
- A sudden and violent tempest arose, placing the sloop and its occupants in great danger of destruction.
- To save the sloop and his family, Ploof moored his sloop to a dock owned by the defendant, Putnam.
- The island and dock were under the care of Putnam's servant.
- Putnam's servant unmoored the sloop from the dock.
- The tempest then drove the sloop onto the shore, destroying the vessel and its contents.
- Ploof and his family were cast into the lake and upon the shore, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Ploof (plaintiff) sued Putnam (defendant) in a Vermont trial court.
- The complaint included two counts against Putnam: one for trespass and one for negligence.
- Putnam filed a general demurrer to both counts, arguing that Ploof's complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.
- The trial court overruled Putnam's demurrer, finding that the complaint was legally sufficient.
- Putnam (appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of private necessity justify a person's entry onto another's land to protect their property and life from serious harm, rendering the landowner liable for damages caused by their removal of the person's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Munson, J.
Yes, the doctrine of private necessity justifies a person's entry onto another's land to protect their property and life from serious harm, rendering the landowner liable for damages caused by their removal of the person's property. The court reasoned that necessity will justify entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise be trespasses. Citing historical precedents, the court noted that this privilege extends to cases of saving property from destruction and applies with special force to the preservation of human life. The plaintiff's need to moor the sloop to the defendant's dock during the violent storm was a clear case of necessity, which created a privilege to use the dock. Therefore, the defendant's act of unmooring the sloop was wrongful, and the defendant is liable for the resulting damages.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in tort law establishing that the doctrine of private necessity acts as a privilege, not just a defense, against trespass. It affirms that a property owner's right to exclude is not absolute and must yield to the higher value of preserving human life and property in an emergency. The decision solidifies the principle that a landowner has a duty not to interfere with someone exercising this privilege. This case sets the stage for future legal questions, such as whether the person exercising the privilege must compensate the landowner for any damage they cause to the property while seeking refuge.
