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.