Guille v. Swan

Case brief: template

Case name:	Guille (d) v. Swan (p)
Court:	SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NEW YORK
Citation; Date:	19 Johns. 381; 1822

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial court:		Appeal court (for appeal cases only):
Plaintiff:	Swan - gardern owner	Appellant:
Defendant:	Guille - ballooner	Respondent:

Facts of the case:

Guille ascended in a balloon in the vicinity of Swan's garden, and descended into his garden. When he descended his body was hanging out of the car of the balloon in a very perilous situation, and he called to a person at work in Swan's field, to help him, in a voice audible to the pursuing crowd. After the balloon descended, it dragged along over potatoes and radishes, about thirty feet, when Guille was taken out. The balloon was carried to a barn at the farther end of the premises. When the balloon descended, more than two hundred persons broke into Swan's garden through the fences, and came on his premises; beating down his vegetables and flowers. The damage done by Guille, with his balloon, was about $ 15, but the crowd did much more. The plaintiff's damages, in all, amounted to $ 90.

Procedural history:

    Swan sued Guille in the justices' court, in an action of trespass, for entering his close, and treading down his roots and vegetables, &c., in a garden in the City of N. Y.
    It was contended before the justice that Guille was answerable only for the damage done by himself, and not for the damage done by the crowd. The justice was of tile opinion, and so instructed the jury, that the defendant was answerable for all the damages done to the plaintiff. The jury, accordingly, found a verdict for him for $ 90, on which the judgment was given, and for costs.
    The cause was submitted to the court on the return, with the briefs of the counsel, stating the points and authorities.

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):

The intent with which an act is done, is by no means the test of the liability of a party to an action of trespass. If the act cause the immediate injury, whether it was intentional, or unintentional, trespass is the proper action to redress the wrong.... Where an immediate act is done by the co-operation, or the joint act of several persons, they are all trespassers, and may be sued jointly or severally; and any one of them is liable for the injury done by all. To render one man liable in trespass for the acts of others, it must appear, either that they acted in concert, or that the act of the individual sought to be charged, ordinarily and naturally, produced the acts of the others.
I will not say that ascending in a balloon is an unlawful act, for it is not so; but it is certain that the aeronaut has no control over its motion horizontally; he is at the sport of the winds, and is to descend when and how he can; his reaching the earth is a matter of hazard. He did descend on the premises of the plaintiff below, at a short distance from the place where he ascended. Now, if his descent, under such circumstances, would, ordinarily and naturally, draw a crowd of people about him, either from curiosity, or for the purpose of rescuing him from a perilous situation; all this he ought to have foreseen, and must be responsible for. Whether the crowd heard him call for help or not, is immaterial; he had put himself in a situation to invite help, and they rushed forward, impelled, perhaps, by the double motive of rendering aid, and gratifying a curiosity which he had excited. ... we must consider the situation in which he placed himself, voluntarily and designedly, as equivalent to a direct request to the crowd to follow him.

Disposition of case:

Judgment affirmed.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE