Tort Law

Ploof v. Putnam

81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188

Facts

• Ploof was sailing on Lake Champlain with his wife and two children.
• A sudden and violent storm arose.
• The storm placed the boat and its occupants in serious danger.
• To protect the family and vessel, Ploof moored the boat to a dock located on Putnam’s private island.
• Ploof entered or used the property solely because of the emergency.
• Putnam’s servant, acting within the course of his employment, unfastened the boat from the dock.
• The vessel was driven back into the storm.
• The boat was destroyed or seriously damaged, and Ploof and members of his family suffered injuries.
• Ploof sued Putnam, alleging that necessity privileged the temporary use of the dock and that the servant wrongfully removed the boat.
• Putnam challenged the legal sufficiency of the claim.

• Whether private necessity privileged Ploof’s entry upon and use of Putnam’s property.
• Whether the landowner had a duty to tolerate the temporary interference while the emergency continued.
• Whether Putnam could be liable for harm caused by his servant’s removal of the boat.

• Necessity may justify entry upon another person’s land or temporary use of another’s property.
• The privilege arises where the interference is reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm to persons or property.
• A person acting under necessity is not treated as an ordinary trespasser.
• While the emergency continues, the property owner must not intentionally interfere with the privileged use in a manner that exposes the entrant to the threatened danger.
• Private necessity may require compensation for actual damage caused to the owner’s property, as illustrated by Vincent v. Lake Erie, but the owner cannot simply expel the entrant into peril.

• Ploof did not enter Putnam’s property for convenience, recreation or private advantage unrelated to danger.
• The storm created an immediate threat to the lives and safety of his family.
• Mooring at the dock was a reasonable means of avoiding that danger.
• The temporary use caused by necessity was therefore privileged.
• Putnam could not treat Ploof like an ordinary wilful trespasser.
• The servant’s action did not merely protect the dock against damage. He deliberately removed the boat while the storm continued.
• That act deprived Ploof and his family of the safety that the dock provided and directly exposed them to the emergency.
• The resulting personal injuries and property loss were foreseeable consequences of unmooring a small vessel during a violent storm.
• Because the servant acted within the course of employment, Putnam could be held responsible under vicarious-liability principles.
• The case also demonstrates the difference between the two consequences of private necessity:
o Ploof had a right to remain temporarily;
o if his boat had damaged the dock, he might still have owed compensation for that damage.

• The Vermont Supreme Court held that the complaint disclosed a valid cause of action.
• Necessity privileged Ploof’s temporary use of the dock.
• Putnam’s servant had no right to unfasten the boat and expose the occupants to the storm.
• Putnam could be liable for the resulting injuries and destruction.
• The adverse ruling against Ploof was reversed and the case was allowed to proceed.