Privilege - Injuries Done Reasonably

Question 1

Primary Criticism

Answer 1

• conduct that gave rise to the accident was wrong

- saying def ought to have acted differently

Question 2

Secondary Criticism

Answer 2

• failure to pay for the harm that has happened (saying def should pay)
• not criticizing the conduct itself, but just saying should pay

Question 3

Criticism in Fault Liability vs. Strict Liability

Answer 3

• fault - both primary and secondary criticism involved

- strict liability - pure secondary criticism

Question 4

Privilege - Core Q’s

Answer 4

• must an actor pay for an injury done reasonably?
• may an actor do injury as long as payment is made?
• general concept seems to be areas in which injury was legally justified but actor still has to pay

Question 5

3 Possible Claims of Privilege

Answer 5

• public takings (government)
• public necessity (destruction of property to safeguard a public good)
• private necessity (private actor)

Question 6

Monongahela Nav. Co. v. US

Answer 6

• US condemns lock and dam of Monongahela

- gov has power to take in return for just comp, since burden of public need should not be visited on one person

Question 7

Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual

Answer 7

• Damage done to Wegner’s house while police were pursuing suspect -> court says compensation should be paid
• court doesn’t allow police to avoid liability w/ defense of public necessity

Question 8

Ploof v. Putnam

Answer 8

• private necessity doctrine would’ve allowed pl to moor boat during storm -> therefore, def is liable for the damage caused by his refusal to allow pl to dock

Question 9

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co. - Facts

Answer 9

• Defendant had right to dock its boat at pl’s dock

- while unloading cargo, winds were so violent that the dock was damaged -> pl sues for damages to dock

Question 10

Vincent - Analysis

Answer 10

• no negligence in terms of BPL (no basis for criticizing ship owner’s actions) - owners were actually prudent to keep the ship docked so as not to create more damage
• BUT should pay anyway

Question 11

Vincent - Holding

Answer 11

• no primary criticism, but should pay
• economic rationale -> preventing windfall for ship owner, involuntary transaction to make sure one doesn’t benefit @ other’s expense

Question 12

Vincent - Dissent

Answer 12

• argues should be no liability - there was a contractual relationship between ship owner + dock owner, + dock owner takes risk of damage to his dock by a boat caught there by a storm

Question 13

Crescent Mining Co. v. Silver King Mining Co. - Facts

Answer 13

• there is a strip of uncultivated land between the properties of the two parties
• Silver King has a dire need for water access -> they build a pipeline underground to get the water which goes through Crescent’s land despite Crescent’s unwillingness to negotiate w/ Silver King

Question 14

Crescent Mining - Holding

Answer 14

• affirms lower court’s denial of injunctive relief
• court reasons that restraining the laying of the pipeline would cause irreparable damage + seriously harm the community
• awards nominal damages ($1) b/c there has been an actual trespass

Question 15

Crescent Mining - Rule

Answer 15

• injunctive relief denied if utility of defendant’s conduct is greater than the gravity of the harm suffered by pl

Question 16

Crescent Mining - Modern Interpretation

Answer 16

• basically, this case would not come out the way it did today - trespass generally taken very seriously + not okay even if no harm
• contrast w/ Jacques v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.

Question 17

Utilitarian Thesis

Answer 17

• concept that if actor is doing more good than harm, there should be no injunction against that conduct BUT it’s okay to make the actor pay for the harm
• this DOESN’T usually work when there are core invasions though - entitlement usually trumps utility