CASE NAME SYLVESTER A. PLOOF v. HENRY W. PUTNAM
CITATION, DATE

81 Vt. 471; 71 A. 188; 1908 Vt. LEXIS 165; Opinion filed October 30, 1908.
COURT SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TRIAL COURT: APPEAL COURT (for appeal cases only):
PLAINTIFF Ploof, boater APPELLANT Putnam
DEFENDANT Putnam, dock owner RESPONDENT Ploof
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
    on the 13th day of November, 1904, the defendant was the owner of a certain island in Lake Champlain, and of a certain dock attached thereto, which island and dock were then in charge of the defendant's servant; that the plaintiff was then possessed of and sailing upon said lake a certain loaded sloop, on which were the plaintiff and his wife and two minor children; that there then arose a sudden and violent tempest, whereby the sloop and the property and persons therein were placed in great danger of destruction; that to save these from destruction or injury the plaintiff was compelled to, and did, moor the sloop to defendant's dock; that the defendant by his servant unmoored the sloop, whereupon it was driven upon the shore by the tempest, without the plaintiff's fault; and that the sloop and its contents were thereby destroyed, and the plaintiff and his wife and children cast into the lake and upon the shore, receiving injuries.
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
REMEDY SOUGHT damages resulting from unmooring the plaintiff's sloop from the defendant's dock.
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
    "This claim is set forth in two counts; one in trespass, charging that the defendant by his servant with force and arms wilfully and designedly unmoored the sloop; the other in case, alleging that it was the duty of the defendant by his servant to permit the plaintiff to moor his sloop to the dock, and to permit it to remain so moored during the continuance of the tempest, but that the defendant by his servant, in disregard of this duty, negligently, carelessly and wrongfully unmoored the sloop. Both counts are demurred to generally. [demurrer: A method of objecting that admits the facts of the opponent's argument but denies that they sustain the pleading based upon them]
    "There are many cases in the books which hold that necessity, and an inability to control movements inaugurated in the proper exercise of a strict right, will justify entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespasses."
    "This doctrine of necessity applies with special force to the preservation of human life."
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
    the existence of natural objects to which the plaintiff  could have moored with equal safety.
    The defendant insists that the counts are defective in that they fail to show that the servant, in casting off the rope, was acting within the scope of his employment.
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
COURT OPINION
    Sides with Ploof in claiming that doctirne of necessity applies.
    Also: "The allegation is that the defendant did this by his servant. The words "wilfully and designedly" in one count, and "negligently, carelessly and wrongfully" in the other, are not applied to the servant, but to the defendant acting through the servant. The necessary implication is that the servant was acting within the scope of his employment."
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)
DISPOSITION OF CASE
    At trial: Each count adjudged sufficient.
    On appeal: Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.
whitespace.gif (816 bytes)

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
    The "doctrine of necessity" abridges property rights in emergency situations. This is logical since in emergncy situations, there is not time to negotiate--transaction costs are high.