Surocco v. Geary case brief summary
F: D, Geary, in his role as Alcalde (Mayor) of SF, burned down the P’s house in order to keep a fire from spreading through the city. TC ruled in favor of P. The D appealed, saying he had the authority to destroy the building because it was necessary to preserve other buildings.
I: whether someone can be liable for damages, if he destroys someone’s house in good faith and out of necessity.
R: individual who destroys another party's property in good faith, and under necessity of preventing harm to the community, is not liable for damages to the otwner of property destoryed.
City couldn’t be sued.
Even though trespass is established, the defense of necessity is recognized by the court.
Co: If building is most valuable thing among the city, and chances of surviving is high, then blowing up that building is for public wealth? Who knows?