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

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online