Connection lost
Server error
Ploof v. Putnam Case Brief
LSD Deep Dive ∘ Audio Lesson
Listen and learn on the go - perfect for commutes and maximizing study time
Free Sample Brief: Ploof v. Putnam
You're viewing a complete case brief as a sample of our premium content. This showcases the full IRAC analysis, case summaries, and detailed breakdowns that LSD+ subscribers get for every case.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: During a storm, a plaintiff moored his sloop to the defendant’s dock out of necessity. The defendant’s servant unmoored it, causing destruction. The court held the necessity justified the mooring, allowing the plaintiff’s suit.
Legal Significance: Established the doctrine of private necessity, recognizing a privilege to enter or interfere with another’s property to protect persons or property from serious imminent harm, overriding the owner’s right to exclude.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Ploof, was sailing a loaded sloop on Lake Champlain with his wife and two children when a sudden and violent storm arose, placing the vessel, cargo, and occupants in grave danger. To prevent destruction, Ploof moored the sloop to a dock attached to an island owned by the defendant, Putnam. The island and dock were under the care of Putnam’s servant. Acting under Putnam’s authority, the servant unmoored the sloop. Consequently, the storm drove the sloop onto the shore, destroying the vessel and its contents, and injuring Ploof and his family. Ploof sued Putnam, alleging both trespass (claiming the servant willfully unmoored the sloop) and negligence (claiming a duty to allow the sloop to remain moored during the storm). Putnam demurred to both counts, arguing they failed to state a valid cause of action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the doctrine of necessity create a privilege allowing entry upon another’s land or interference with their property to save persons or property from imminent danger, thereby rendering the landowner liable for preventing such entry or interference?
Yes, the plaintiff’s act of mooring the sloop to the defendant’s dock was justified by necessity, creating a privilege that the defendant, through his servant, could not lawfully interfere with; the defendant’s demurrer is overruled. The necessity alleged was sufficient to justify the plaintiff’s actions.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Legal Issue
Does the doctrine of necessity create a privilege allowing entry upon another’s land or interference with their property to save persons or property from imminent danger, thereby rendering the landowner liable for preventing such entry or interference?
Conclusion
Ploof v. Putnam is a foundational case affirming the privilege of private necessity in tort law, establishing that imminent danger can justify temporary trespass, and interference with that privilege by the property owner is actionable.
Legal Rule
An entry upon the land of another or an interference with personal property that would otherwise be a trespass is justified by necessity, particularly when undertaken to preserve human life or property from destruction or serious injury. (See Miller v. Fandrye, Poph. 161; Henn’s Case, W. Jones 296; Proctor v. Adams, 113 Mass. 376; Mouse’s Case, 12 Co. 63).
Legal Analysis
The court recognized the well-established common law doctrine of necessity, which permits actions that would otherwise constitute trespass. Citing various precedents, the court illustrated that necessity justifies temporary intrusions onto land, such as deviating from an obstructed highway (Campbell v. Race) or entering property to save goods from peril (Proctor v. Adams). The court highlighted that this privilege applies with even greater force when human life is at risk, referencing Mouse’s Case, where cargo was jettisoned to save passengers during a storm. The plaintiff’s allegations clearly described a situation of imminent peril from a violent tempest, compelling him to moor to the defendant’s dock as an act of necessity to save his vessel and family. This necessity created a temporary privilege to use the dock. The defendant’s servant’s act of unmooring the sloop violated this privilege. The court found the plaintiff’s averment of necessity sufficient, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff needed to plead the absence of alternatives. Furthermore, the court held that alleging the defendant acted ‘by his servant’ sufficiently pleaded that the servant acted within the scope of employment.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Necessity privileges mooring a vessel to another’s dock during a storm to save life and property.
- A plaintiff pleading necessity need not explicitly negate alternative safe options; alleging compulsion to use the specific property is sufficient.
- Alleging the defendant acted “by his servant” sufficiently pleads action within the scope of employment.