d Woodbridge v Marks 1897 NL Nature of protective measures matter no liability

D woodbridge v marks 1897 nl nature of protective

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 49 pages.

d) Woodbridge v. Marks (1897): NL Nature of protective measures matter; no liability for watchdog attack of accidental trespasser. Even though ∆ knew they were vicious, keeping dogs to protect property isn’t unlawful, it’s actually customary. Dogs also discriminate a bit more than spring gun, and are more visible, and aren’t just weapons. 2. Property vs. property: liability allocated to preserve most valuable property (relative value of property) a) Hull v. Scruggs (1941): NL P’s dogs kept coming onto D’s land and sucking all the eggs. For 3 weeks, D took different actions to keep the dogs away. D killed P’s dogs. Defense of property allowed given reasonable measures. No liability for shooting dog that repeatedly sucked D’s eggs because he tried all other reasonable precautions to stop the dog and they didn’t work. Rule: An individual may use reasonable force to protect his property. b) Kershaw v. McKown (1916): L/NL No liability for D shooting P’s dog when attacking D’s goat. Relative value of property matters to proportionality of response. No liability when ∆ saves more valuable property. Additional requirements: requires apparent necessity, acts must be reasonable. Only have to pay value of dog if it’s worth more than the goat. c) Bamford v. Turnley – single owner principle: how would individual act if he controlled both the threat and the threatened property? May not have done this case. 3. Private Necessity: Ploof v. Putnam-- Doctrine of Private Necessity gives a right to an individual to trespass or battery in order to protect life or property. Must be (1) need for preservation of human life and (2) no other reasonable alternatives. (Ploof). Is limited by the Doctrine of Incomplete Privilege – if the person creates damages, he is liable for those damages, even with privilege defense. (Vincent)
Image of page 11
a) Ploof v. Putnam (1908): L Master is L for the willful and malicious acts of his servant (servant’s acts under circumstances were unlawful). Emergency may justify tortious behavior. Can’t endanger human life to save property when there’s a necessity. Act of God. Rule: Doctrine of necessity applies to the preservation of human life and justifies the trespass on land or personal property; Master is L for the willful and malicious acts of his servant (servant’s acts under circumstances were unlawful) b) Rossi v. DelDuca (1962): L no trespass in private necessity. P chased by different dog onto ∆’s land, attacked by ∆’s dog there & ∆ liable. Usual rule: liable for your dog’s damages unless it’s a trespasser, but private necessity negated the trespass. P responsible for damages that arose of private necessity. Rule: One is privileged to enter the land in possession of another if it is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary to prevent serious harm to actor or his property c) Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910): NL but pay for damage ∆ is responsible for damages arising from private necessity. ∆ tied boat to P’s dock during storm and damages dock. Lawfully tied so not a trespass, but a forced transaction because ∆ still has to pay for damage done.
Image of page 12

Want to read all 49 pages?

Image of page 13

Want to read all 49 pages?

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 49 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes