Friday, September 12, 2008

Surocco v. Geary (a.k.a. the house is on fire)

Surocco v. Geary
3 Cal. 69 (1953).

Chief Justice Murray delivered opinion

Facts:
  • Geary, the Alcade (mayor) of San Fran., had authority to burn down plain.'s bldg to stop fire from spreading
  • Fire passed over and burned beyond plain's bldg
  • Plain. was in process of remving items from bldg at time it was dstryd
  • Plain. argues could have remvd most/all items if given more time
Issue:
Can a person who, under apparent necessity, burns down/destroys an individual's house during time of conflagration to save adjacent buildings and stop fire's progress, be held personally liable for damages to owner of property purposefully destroyed?

Holding: No, value life over property.

Reasoning:
  • Right to destroy prop. to prevent conflag. is traced to highest law of necessity
  • Individual rights of prop. give way to higher laws of impending necessity
  • Private rights of individual yield to considerations of general convenience and interests of society
  • Who is to judge necessity?
    • necessity of blowing up house might not be apparent to homeowner who has personal interest
  • Difficulty in determining necessity is not obviated by making parties responsible in every case, whether necessity existed or not
  • Bec. of absence of any legislation, ct falls back on common law
    • facts clearly establshed
    • blowing up house was necessary
Judgment: Reversed

Opinions: N/A

Thoughts: Public necessity case. Not arguing against principle but how it was applied. Plain. argues ok to blow up house but let me get my stuff!

Rule: The common law says that when it is necessary to give up one house in the interests of the society (public necessity) the person whose house was sacrificed can't sue.

No comments: