Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910 · Torts

Tortsnecessityprivilegeprivate necessitycompensationprivate necessitynecessity privilegecompensation

Facts

Defendant's steamship was moored to plaintiffs' dock in Duluth to discharge cargo when a violent storm arose and made navigation practically impossible. After unloading, the ship signaled for a tug to remove it, but none could be obtained, and those in charge kept the ship fast to the dock, replacing lines as they parted. The wind and waves repeatedly drove the vessel against the dock, causing $500 in damage. The court found that keeping the ship moored was prudent and not negligent under the extraordinary storm conditions.

Issue

When a shipowner, acting prudently during a severe storm, deliberately keeps its vessel fast to another's dock in order to preserve the vessel, is the shipowner liable for damage thereby caused to the dock? Does necessity excuse the trespass or use while still requiring compensation for the resulting harm?

Rule

Where a defendant, acting under necessity, deliberately and prudently uses or holds another's property to preserve its own property, the defendant is privileged to do so but must compensate the owner for the damage directly caused. By contrast, if the injury occurs without the defendant's direct intervention and is solely the result of an act of God or unavoidable accident, there is no liability.

🔒

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 windstorm on Lake Michigan, Nora Bell keeps her delivery barge tied to a privately owned marina pier in Milwaukee after unloading equipment. She cannot safely navigate away, and she repeatedly replaces fraying ropes through the night. The barge pounds against the pier and splinters several support beams.

Is Nora most likely liable for the damage to the marina pier?

Explanation. The majority rule is that private necessity creates a privilege to use another's property when reasonably necessary to save one's own property, but it does not excuse paying for damage directly caused by that deliberate use. Here Nora prudently kept the barge tied to the pier, but she intentionally held it there to save the barge at the pier owner's expense. Negligence is not required.