Surocco v. Geary - efjefjef PDF

Preview

Summary

efjefjef...

Description

Item

Description

Case Name

Surocco v. Geary 58 Am.Dec. 385

Court and Date

Supreme Court of California (1853)

Disposition and Procedural History

Surocco brought suit against Geary to recover damages of his destroyed property. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Surocco, and Geary appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court of California.

Issue (question presented)

Whether a person who destroys the property of another out of a good-faith public necessity of stopping the spread of a fire may be held liable for the damages.

Trigger Facts (legally relevant facts)

In December of 1849, a big fire was spreading through San Francisco. In order to stop the spread of the fire, Geary, the Alcalde of the city, blew up and destroyed the house and property of Surocco. Before the destruction of his house, Surocco was in the midst of removing his property from the home, and had it not been destroyed by Geary, he could have removed all of his belongings.

Rule (i.e., the law)

Under the common law, a person who destroys the property of another on the basis of a good-faith public necessity is justified in doing so, and will not be held liable for the damages.

Reasoning (on each issue)

Here, destroying Surocco’s house was necessary to preserve the general interests of the city, specifically protecting the surrounding buildings. A house on fire or those surrounding it which are bound to be consumed by flames is lawful to destroy in order to reduce the spread of said fire. The private rights of a home owner ceases to the interest of the public, as otherwise one stubborn person could burn a whole city down by refusing to allow destruction of their property.

Holding (on each issue)

No. Geary is not liable for destroying Surocco’s home. The court held that the blowing up of the house was necessary, and it would have been consumed if it were left standing which would put surrounding houses and property at risk of being consumed and spreading the fire. If Surroco had been allowed to remove his belongings, the time it would have taken could have allowed the fire to spread more throughout the city, deeming the destruction a necessity of the public.

Main Takeaway

Public necessity trumps the personal interests or private property rights of an owner, if the necessity requires the property to be destroyed due to the necessity of the public.

Other Notes...