{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Ploof v. Putnam - responsible for Rational To give up an...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ploof v. Putnam 81 Vt. 471 (1908) Fact: Operative Facts: A sailor with 47 passangers on his boat went into a dock and moored the sloop of his ship (think It’s pulling up his mast), because a tempest was happening in the seas. The owner of the island/dock that the the sailor moored his boat on, sued for tresspassing. Tresspass v. Necessity & Battery v. Defense of Property Issue: Did the sailor have a necessity defense? Rule: Necessity is an act on another’s property to save the life of the actor or another, from a act such as one God would make. Storm, hurrican, ect. Or an act that the actor is in no way
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: responsible for. Rational: To give up an item to save lives… is a cost that everyone should be ready to incur. Holding: Narrow: If there is a storm, and you need to rest your boat in a dock to prevent the boat from being pulled in it and risking the lives of your passangers, then you could have a neccessity defense. Broad: If there is any life threatening immediate danger that you need to do something unlawful that damges only the property of another, then you could have a neccessity defense when you do it. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}