Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendant’s steamship was moored to Plaintiffs’ dock to unload cargo. A massive storm prevented the arrival of tugboats to remove the steamship after the unloading. Rather than cast the ship adrift, Defendant’s employees kept the boat moored to the dock, which resulted in damage.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

One who takes actions to protect his property that result in damage to another’s property is required to compensate for those damages, even when the actions taken were necessary to prevent the destruction of his own property.

Facts.

Defendant’s steamship was moored to a dock owned by Plaintiffs to allow for the unloading of cargo. By the time the unloading was complete, the weather had grown so perilous that no tugboats could enter the area and remove the ship. Rather than risk the ship’s loss or destruction by untying it from the dock, Defendant’s employees kept the mooring intact, which resulted in damage to the dock. Plaintiffs sued to recover for the damage caused by the ship’s continued mooring. After a jury trial, a verdict was entered for Plaintiffs. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial, and Defendant appealed.

Issue.

Did the trial court properly deny Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of necessity?

Held.

Yes. The judgment was affirmed. While necessity may sometimes require that one individual use the property of another to avoid destruction of his own property, the party whose property is damaged is entitled to compensation.

Discussion.

The Court here distinguishes between public necessity for the greater good of society and private necessity for the good of one’s own property. In the case of public necessity, compensation is not required for resulting damage. In the case of private necessity, however, while one may be entitled to use another’s property and the act of so doing is thus not considered unlawful, any resulting damage must be compensated.