Ploof v. Putnam
81 Vt. 471 · Supreme Court of Vermont · 1908
Facts
On November 13, 1904, the plaintiff was sailing a loaded sloop on Lake Champlain with his wife and two minor children. A sudden and violent tempest arose, placing the sloop and its occupants in great danger of destruction. To save them, the plaintiff moored his sloop to a dock owned by the defendant, which was in charge of the defendant's servant. The defendant's servant then unmoored the sloop, causing it to be driven ashore by the tempest. As a result, the sloop and its contents were destroyed, and the plaintiff, his wife, and children were cast into the lake and injured.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a claim with two counts, one in trespass and one in case, to which the defendant demurred generally. The lower court presumably overruled the demurrer, and this court affirmed that judgment, remanding the cause.
Issue
Does necessity, specifically to preserve human life and property during a tempest, justify mooring a vessel to another's private dock, thereby making the dock owner liable for damages if their servant unmoors it? Does the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently allege this necessity and that the servant acted within the scope of employment?
Holding
Yes, necessity justifies mooring to another's dock to preserve life and property, and the defendant's servant's act of unmooring the sloop, causing damage, can create liability for the defendant. The plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleged necessity and the servant's scope of employment.
Rule
The doctrine of necessity justifies entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise be trespasses, especially when preserving human life. When a sudden and violent tempest places a vessel and its occupants in great danger, mooring to a private dock is justified by necessity. In such a situation, the dock owner has a duty to permit the vessel to remain moored, and unmooring it can lead to liability. An allegation that the defendant acted 'by his servant' implies the servant was acting within the scope of employment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.