Vincent
v. Lake Eric Transp. Co.
Supreme
Court of
109
Prosser,
pp. 120-121
Facts: A steamship was moored to a
dock when a storm came in. If the ship
had been cut loose from the dock, it would have been blown away and might have
caused damage to something else.
Instead, the ship was tied to the dock, but because of the storm, it
kept hitting the dock, damaging it. The
owner of the dock sued the owner of the steamship. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and
the defendant appealed.
Issue: Does the defendant have the
privilege by necessity to moor the ship such that the defendant is not liable?
Rule: The defendant has a partial
privilege to protect its private property from serious harm. The defendant will be subject to liability to
anyone who is injured.
Analysis: The court basically says to
the defendant that what it did was right under the circumstances, but that
doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to pay the plaintiff for the damage done. The court implicitly distinguishes this case
from Surocco in that the former case
dealt with public necessity.
Conclusion: The court affirmed the
order denying a new trial.
Notes
and Questions
1. There is a
good economic argument for this rule. We
want to encourage an actor like
2. This would be
different because the safety of persons would be at stake and the law values
the protection of human life more highly than property. I think the ship’s owner would not be liable
for any damages that occurred during the period the crewmen were escaping. However, once all the crewmen are safe, I
think the ship’s owner could be liable for any damages that followed.
3. If a public
highway is blocked, you can cut through adjacent land to get around the
obstruction.
4. It is not
clear from the description here, but it is clear from the record of the case,
that the plaintiff and the extortioner were not one and the same. It does not seem at all just that you should
substitute your safety for that of an innocent bystander. The case is rather lengthy, but the defendant
seems to get off scot-free because the court finds that the extortioner was the
proximate cause of the harm to the plaintiff rather than the act of the defendant. But didn’t the defendant have a duty to the plaintiff
to warn him that a bomb was about to go off and that he should take cover? I guess the court says that when you’re under
duress, to act out of self-preservation and anything you do is either
involuntary or can be otherwise excused.
I wonder if the court ruled the way it did because it was bribed by the
wealthy defendant.
5. Because tort
law places such a high value on human life and personal safety, it would be
inconsistent to allow any privilege for taking human life.