Ploof v. Putnam
81 Vt. 471 · Supreme Court of Vermont · 1908
Facts
During a violent tempest on Lake Champlain, the plaintiff moored his sloop, carrying his family, to the defendant's private dock to prevent its destruction. The defendant's servant then unmoored the sloop, causing it to be driven ashore, destroyed, and injuring the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff sued in trespass and case, alleging the servant's actions were willful or negligent, and the defendant demurred to the complaint.
Issue
Is a complaint sufficient against a general demurrer when it alleges that the plaintiff moored his vessel to a private dock out of necessity during a tempest, and the defendant's servant unmoored it, causing damage, without explicitly negating other mooring options or detailing the servant's scope of employment?
Holding
The court affirmed the judgment, finding the complaint sufficient. It held that the allegations of necessity were complete, justifying the mooring, and that the servant's actions were sufficiently pleaded as being within the scope of employment.
Rule
The doctrine of necessity justifies entry upon another's land or interference with property to preserve life or property from imminent destruction by natural forces. An allegation that a defendant 'did this by his servant' implies the servant acted within the scope of employment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.