The Necessity Defense

Question 1

Ploof v. Putnam

Answer 1

i. Facts
1) P owned and operated a sloop he was operating on a lake with his family. While out on the water a terrible tempest arose, causing them to seek shelter. The P moored his sloop at the D’s dock but the D unmoored the sloop causing it to taken by the storm and battered to pieces
ii. Issue;
1) Di the P commit a trespass by docking sloop at the D’s dock?
2) Is the D liable for the unmooring and subsequent damage of the of the sloop?
iii. Holding
1) P did not commit trespass, because he did so in an emergency situation.
a) Docterine of neccesity applies with special force to the preservation of human life
2) An entry on the D’s land to save goods which are in danger of being lost or destroyed, is not a trespass
iv. Note
1) In situations where a person is forced to make an unavoidable choice of evils between trespass and preservation of human life, that person by neccesity may do choose the former.
2) Was P privelaged to use force against the D?
a) That’s a hard one, if it was between you dying and you using force not to, probably not
3) What if the P found that the storm was imminent and ignored the warning?
a) Still privelaged to enter the dock
It is hard to determine if property damage, but not human life is in danger.

Question 2

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Company

Answer 2

i. Facts
1) D contracted with D to allow D to unload cargo at the P’s wharf. While unloading cargo a storm arose, blocking their ability to sail back out. While docked the D’s ship caused damage to the dock. The P was awarded 500 in damages at trial
ii. Issue:
1) Is D liable for damages to the dock?
iii. Holding
1) The D is liable, while necessity allows him to dock, it does not absolve the D of liability when damage occurs.
iv. Notes
1) In situations where the individual is forced to make an unavoidable choice of evils, especially when human life is at stake, that person may trespass upon another’s property without liability. He would still be liable for damages done to the property by the trespass.
2) Dissenting opinion
a) P assumes some risk by being in that particular industry (implied terms of the contract)
b) Damage caused by the accident due to an inevitable storm
3) Why does the minority decision make sense?
a) The dock owner is in the position to anticipate if a storm will occur, and as such should charge more money if he thought a storm would cause damage to his dock. He is also in a better position to make an insurance claim. He is also in control of building it, and could have built it stronger
4) Boat owner chose to remain moored by securing it with extra cables, it preserved its property at the expense of the P,
a) TL thinks this is preposterous

Question 3

SS 2-197

Answer 3

Incomplete privelate usually occurs between stranger, but it may alos arise where a business invitee or social guest remains on an owners property to avoid the neccessity

Question 4

Post v. Jones

Answer 4

i. Facts
1) Laden with oil the P ship runs aground in foggy conditions, in desperation they auction off 800 barrels of oil and whalebone to other ships in the area. The owners of the oil and whale bone want the K changed and they want the proceeds from the products or the products themselves once the other ships sell or get back to port.
ii. Issue:
1) Was the sale of those goods in such a desperate situation, justified
iii. Holding
The contract was made invalid, and the proceeds were resdistributed as such from the sales of the goods back to the owners

Question 5

Mayor of New York v. Lord

Answer 5

i. Holding
Privilege is absolute in cases of necessity to prevent spreading of a fire, ravages of a pestilence and the advance from hostile army or other great public calamity.

Question 6

Respublica v. Sparhawk

Answer 6

i. Privilege in cases where private property is used to save society but didn’t need to be used for such purpose is the sole defense
ii. Asymmetrical incentives.

Question 7

United States v. Caltex

Answer 7

i. Holding
Court refused to order compensation for the demolition of an oil company’s terminal facilities in manila before the Japanese take over

Question 8

National Board of YMCA v United States

Answer 8

i. Holding
No compensable taking when the US army troops occupied the P’s buildings located in the panama canal zone after they had been placed under siege by rioting Panamanians who had already caused substantial damage to the structures.

Question 9

Brewer v. State

Answer 9

i. Facts
1) Major forest fire sweeps through Fairbanks, forest service sets other fires which destroy the vegetation but save the buildings
ii. Holding,
Not liable because public necessity acts as a defense to property torts such as trespass and conversion