Torts
Ploof v. Putnam, 81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188 (Vt. 1908)
Study notes for Ploof v. Putnam: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The doctrine of private necessity allows a person to enter another's property to avoid imminent harm, and landowners cannot eject them without liability for resultant injuries.
In Ploof v. Putnam, the court addresses the doctrine of private necessity within the context of tort law. The case illustrates how imminent danger can create a privilege for an individual to temporarily enter another's property to avoid harm. Professors often emphasize the importance of understanding this doctrine in relation to property rights and personal safety, highlighting the balance courts must strike between protecting landowners and allowing necessary actions to save lives.
Additionally, the discussion around the wrongdoing of Putnam's servant in unmooring the sloop is fundamental, as it prompts students to consider the ramifications of actions taken in emergencies. Students should note how this case sets a precedent for emergency situations where the necessity of action might supersede property rights, thereby reinforcing the recognition of the urgency in matters of safety during crises.
Ploof Provides Passage in Peril (the three Ps for remembering that private necessity allows entry in emergencies).
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. | In Vincent, the necessity to dock was not as clear-cut, as the storm had abated when the ship was tied up. Ploof's situation was one of immediate and unavoidable danger. |
| Surovec v. City of New York | Surovec involved governmental action instead of private necessity; here, the court addressed state liability, while Ploof deals with individual liability and property use. |
The rule promotes the protection of human life over strict adherence to property rights in emergency situations, encouraging individuals to act in self-preservation without fear of legal repercussions.
The application of the rule may undermine property rights, as landowners could face liability for rightful control or management of their property, potentially leading to disputes over boundaries of necessity.
Ploof v. Putnam often appears in exams concerning the interplay of property rights and tort law, specifically regarding the doctrine of necessity. Students may be asked to analyze the implications of the ruling in scenarios involving emergencies and trespass.