Surocco v. Geary

Supreme Court of California · 1853 · Torts

TortsNecessityProperty destruction during conflagrationpublic necessityconflagrationdestruction of propertytrespass justificationapparent necessity

Facts

During a major fire in San Francisco, defendant Geary, then Alcalde, had plaintiffs' house blown up to stop the progress of the conflagration. He justified the destruction on the grounds of authority and necessity. The fire had already passed over and burned beyond plaintiffs' building, and at the time of destruction plaintiffs were removing their goods and could have removed more, if not all, had they not been prevented. The appeal focused on whether defendant could be held personally liable for the destruction.

Issue

Can a person who, in good faith and under apparent necessity during a conflagration, destroys another's house to save adjacent buildings and stop the fire's progress be held personally liable to the owner for the loss?

Rule

Under the common-law doctrine of necessity, a person who destroys another's property in good faith and under apparent or actual necessity during a conflagration to prevent the fire's spread is justified and not personally liable in trespass. But if property is destroyed without apparent or actual necessity, the actor is liable, and in every case the necessity must be clearly shown.

🔒

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.

A fast-moving warehouse fire breaks out in Cleveland and strong winds push flames toward a row of attached buildings. Nolan Price, the district fire warden, orders Maya Ortiz's vacant print shop demolished to create a firebreak after concluding the structure would likely ignite within minutes and transmit the fire to neighboring buildings. The shop is destroyed, and the fire is stopped at that block.

If Maya sues Nolan personally for trespass and property damage, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a person who destroys another's property in good faith and under apparent or actual necessity during a conflagration to stop its progress is justified and not personally liable in trespass. The court treated this as a necessity privilege, not as a compensable taking requiring consent or express statutory authorization.