Ploof v. Putnam case brief summary
71 A. 188 (Vt. 1908)
Defendant excepted from the Chittenden County Court (Vermont), which overruled defendant's general demurrer to each count of plaintiff's declaration, in plaintiff's action in trespass and case alleging that defendant, by his agent and servants, willfully and negligently cast off plaintiff's sloop from defendant's dock.
CASE FACTS
Defendant was the owner of a dock attached to an island. Plaintiff was sailing in a loaded sloop with his wife and children. A storm arose and plaintiff moored the sloop to defendant's dock. Defendant's servant unmoored the sloop, and the sloop was driven upon the shore by the storm and destroyed. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging two counts: one in trespass, charging that the defendant by his servant willfully unmoored the sloop; the other in case, alleging that defendant by his servant negligently unmoored the sloop. Defendant demurred to both counts.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The supreme court affirmed the trial court's overruling of defendant's general demurrers in plaintiff's action in trespass and case alleging defendant willfully and negligently cast off plaintiff's sloop from defendant's dock, since plaintiff's declaration sufficiently alleged that defendant's servant was acting within the scope of his employment.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
71 A. 188 (Vt. 1908)
Defendant excepted from the Chittenden County Court (Vermont), which overruled defendant's general demurrer to each count of plaintiff's declaration, in plaintiff's action in trespass and case alleging that defendant, by his agent and servants, willfully and negligently cast off plaintiff's sloop from defendant's dock.
CASE FACTS
Defendant was the owner of a dock attached to an island. Plaintiff was sailing in a loaded sloop with his wife and children. A storm arose and plaintiff moored the sloop to defendant's dock. Defendant's servant unmoored the sloop, and the sloop was driven upon the shore by the storm and destroyed. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging two counts: one in trespass, charging that the defendant by his servant willfully unmoored the sloop; the other in case, alleging that defendant by his servant negligently unmoored the sloop. Defendant demurred to both counts.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's general demurrers, since the declaration adequately alleged that defendant's servant was acting within the scope of his employment.
- Plaintiff's averment of necessity was complete and disclosed a necessity for mooring the sloop to defendant's dock.
- It was for the trial court to determine whether necessity indeed existed.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court affirmed the trial court's overruling of defendant's general demurrers in plaintiff's action in trespass and case alleging defendant willfully and negligently cast off plaintiff's sloop from defendant's dock, since plaintiff's declaration sufficiently alleged that defendant's servant was acting within the scope of his employment.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment