What is the core rule from Ploof v. Putnam?

The doctrine of private necessity allows a person to use another’s property when needed to save life. Interference to stop such use can create liability.

Why did the plaintiff tie to the dock?

A sudden storm made it necessary to secure the boat for the safety of the family on board.

Was the dock owner responsible for his servant’s act?

Yes. Untying the boat during the emergency led to injuries and damage, so the owner was held liable.

Does private necessity excuse all damage?

It justifies the entry or use to save life, but the user may still need to pay for actual property damage caused.

Is private necessity different from public necessity?

Yes. Private necessity protects specific people; public necessity protects the community. Both allow otherwise wrongful entry or use.

Ploof v. Putnam

Ploof v. Putnam (Private Necessity in Tort)

Tort Law 81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188 1908 (decision), Published: 30 Oct 2025 Vermont Supreme Court Gulzar Hashmi ~5 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: private necessity, storm, dock, life safety SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: trespass, privilege, servant liability, emergency

Quick Summary

During a sudden storm, a family tied their boat to a private dock to stay safe. The dock owner’s servant untied the boat. The family was hurt and the boat was lost. The court said: private necessity lets a person use another’s property to save life. Stopping that use in an emergency can make the owner liable.

Citation: Ploof v. Putnam, 81 Vt. 471, 71 A. 188 (1908)

Issues

Can a dock owner or his servant untie a boat that is moored out of necessity during a storm?

Rules

Private necessity applies strongly to the preservation of human life.

A person may use or even risk another’s property to save life. The act is privileged, though responsibility for actual damage may remain.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for Ploof v. Putnam facts

Putnam owned the dock; his servant managed it that night.

Ploof was sailing with his family when a fierce storm began.

For safety, Ploof tied the boat to Putnam’s dock.

The servant untied the boat despite the emergency.

The family suffered injuries; the boat was destroyed.

Ploof sued, claiming a privilege of private necessity.

Arguments

Appellant (Ploof)

The storm made docking necessary to protect life.
Untying during an emergency was wrongful and caused harm.
Necessity gives a privilege to use the dock temporarily.

Respondent (Putnam)

The dock was private; consent was required.
The servant acted to control use of the dock.

Judgment

The court ruled for Ploof. He had a right, under private necessity, to moor at the dock to save his family. Untying the boat in those conditions was wrongful and led to liability.

Necessity to preserve life creates a legal privilege to use another’s property.

Ratio

Where life and safety are at risk, the law recognizes a privilege of private necessity. Emergency use of another’s property is justified. Interfering with that use, especially in a dangerous storm, is unlawful.

Why It Matters

Sets a humane rule: life over property during emergencies.
Guides owners and caretakers on duties when danger is clear.
Often paired with Vincent v. Lake Erie to teach damages under necessity.

Key Takeaways

Private necessity = privilege to protect life in emergencies.
Owner must not obstruct reasonable emergency mooring.
Privilege may still require paying for actual damage caused.
Servant’s wrongful act can create owner liability.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “STORM? TIE. UNTYING? LIABILITY.”

See danger to life → Use property if needed.
Tie safely and act reasonably.
Do not obstruct necessity; else liability follows.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Could the dock owner’s servant lawfully untie a boat moored out of necessity during a storm?

Rule

Private necessity authorizes reasonable use of another’s property to save life; obstruction can be wrongful.

Application

Severe storm + family aboard = emergency. Mooring was reasonable; untying created foreseeable harm.

Conclusion

Ploof’s necessity was privileged; the owner was liable for the servant’s interference.

Glossary

Private Necessity: A defense allowing temporary use of another’s property to protect life or safety.
Privilege: A legal allowance that makes an act lawful despite what would otherwise be a wrong.
Vicarious Liability: Responsibility of an owner for wrongful acts of a servant or agent done in the course of duty.