Ploof v.

Putnam
71 A. 188 (Vt. 1908)

Facts: Putnam (defendant) owned an island and a dock on Lake Champlain. On November 13,
1904, Ploof (plaintiff) and his family were sailing their boat on the lake. A violent storm arose
that threatened the safety of Ploof’s boat and the lives of himself and his family. Ploof anchored
his boat to Putnam’s dock to save it from the storm. Putnam, through his servant, untied Ploof’s
boat from the dock. The boat crashed into the shore and was destroyed, and Ploof and his family
suffered injuries. Ploof brought suit against Putnam for damages based on his injuries, arguing
that his act of tying the boat to Putnam’s dock was justified by necessity.
Issue: Whether necessity caused by an “act of God” or other disaster resulting in an inability to
control movements justifies intrusions involving another’s land or property that would otherwise
constitute a trespass.
Procedural History: The trial court entered judgment for Ploof, and Putnam appealed.
Rule: An entry upon land to save goods which are in danger of being lost or destroyed by water
or fire is not a trespass. One assaulted and in peril of his life may rin through the close of another
to escape from his assailant.
Holding: Necessity caused by the storm justified Ploof’s need to dock his boat at Putnam’s dock,
and Putnam is liable for damages and injuries suffered by Ploof and his family as a result of
Putnam’s untying Ploof’s boat.
Reasoning: Necessity caused by an “act of God” or other disaster resulting in an inability to
control movements justifies entries upon land and interferences with personal property that
would otherwise have been trespasses. An entry upon land to save goods that are in danger of
being lost or destroyed by water or fire is not a trespass. This doctrine of necessity especially
applies when the danger involves a threat to human life. It is not a trespass when one destroys the
personal property of another or enters onto another’s land to save his life or the lives of others.
When Ploof’s boat was caught in the violent storm, it was necessary for him to immediately
anchor his boat to save from destruction his boat and the lives of himself and his family. The
storm arose by an “act of God,” and thus Ploof’s use of Putnam’s dock does not constitute a
trespass. Putnam’s argument that other natural objects existed to which Ploof could have easily
tied his boat instead is a question of fact appropriate for determination by a jury. For the time
being, Ploof has shown sufficient proof that his entrance onto Putnam’s dock is justified by
necessity. The judgment is affirmed and remanded.