Surocco
v. Geary
Supreme
Court of
3
Prosser,
pp. 117-118
Facts: Geary, in his role as
Alcalde (Mayor) of
Issue: If you destroy someone’s house
in good faith and out of necessity, can you be held liable for damages?
Rule: The common law says that
when it is necessary to give up one house in the interests of society (public
necessity), the person whose house is sacrificed can’t sue.
Analysis: The court finds no statute
that contradicts the common law formulation of necessity.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court of
California reversed the trial court’s verdict.
Notes
and Questions
1. This would
seem to be a clear case of necessity.
I’m not sure I agree with the application of the rule in the second
case, because it means that the community at large receives a good at the
expense of a third party. In other
words, the cost is transferred as it is mitigated. On the other hand, if the defendant in the
first case had not sprayed the chemicals, the plaintiff’s own timber might have
burned down along with all the rest of the trees in the county.
2. Again, I think
the burning of the clothes is a plausible public health necessity, but because
the good to the community so far exceeds the cost to the heir, it seems
reasonable to transfer at least part of the cost of the clothing to the
community.
3. Again, I’m a
bit wary. It seems reasonable that the
company should get some compensation, if not full compensation, because the
larger community presumably gets a large benefit from the harm done to one
company.
4. If private
citizens reasonably judge something is necessary, it is moral for them to act
even at the risk of legal sanction. As a
mater of policy, we do not want to discourage them from doing what is necessary
by threatening them with possible lawsuits.
If a private citizen acted in good faith out of what they sincerely
believed was necessity, I think it is good policy to not hold them liable.
5. Again, I think
it would be good policy for the government to pay people back for the benefit
they conferred on the community by sustaining a personal loss. I think it is a useful distinction to make
between the liability and privilege of an individual and the liability of the
government as a stand-in for the community at large.
6. The statute in
this case was interpreted only to apply to just compensation due in the case of
public works projects. The court would
not give the storeowner compensation because the actions of the SWAT team could
not possibly be construed as any sort of public project.
7. Fire insurance
seems like an economically efficient way of sharing the cost of destroying an
individual’s property. The benefit is
obviously shared among all the property owners whose property is spared.