Ploof v. Putnam

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1908 · Torts

Tortsnecessityprivilegeprivate necessitytrespassnecessityprivate necessitytrespass

Facts

The plaintiff was sailing a loaded sloop on Lake Champlain with his wife and two minor children when a sudden and violent tempest placed the sloop, its contents, and the people aboard in great danger of destruction. To save the boat and the persons on it, the plaintiff moored the sloop to the defendant's dock on the defendant's island. The defendant's servant, who was in charge of the island and dock, unmoored the sloop. The storm then drove the sloop ashore, destroying it and its contents and injuring the plaintiff and his family.

Issue

Does a declaration state a valid claim when it alleges that necessity compelled the plaintiff to moor his boat to the defendant's dock during a violent tempest and that the defendant, acting through his servant, wrongfully unmoored it? Must the plaintiff also plead that no natural object was available for mooring with equal safety, or more specifically plead that the servant acted within the scope of employment?

Rule

Necessity can justify entry upon the land of another and interference with property that would otherwise be trespass, and the doctrine applies with special force to the preservation of human life. An allegation that a sudden and violent tempest compelled the plaintiff to moor to the defendant's dock to save the vessel and those aboard sufficiently pleads necessity; the evidentiary details creating that necessity need not be alleged. An allegation that the defendant acted by his servant, phrased as the defendant's wrongful act through the servant, sufficiently implies that the servant acted within the scope of employment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a sudden whiteout in rural Vermont, Lena Ortiz was driving with her two children when their car skidded off a county road and became stranded beside a steep drop. To avoid exposure and a likely rollover, Lena pulled through an open gate onto Noah Barrett's fenced pasture and stopped on higher ground. Noah ordered his ranch hand to force the family back onto the roadside immediately, and the car then slid into a ditch, injuring the occupants.

If Lena sues for the injuries caused by being forced off the pasture, which is the strongest argument that her complaint survives a demurrer?

Explanation. The majority recognizes that necessity may justify entry onto another's land when circumstances compel it, and that the doctrine applies with special force to preservation of human life. At the pleading stage, allegations that immediate danger required use of the defendant's land are sufficient to state a claim against one who wrongfully expels the entrant from that place of safety.