Jim Whitney

/ Economics 495

Case brief

Recorder name: / Jordan Kortlandt
Case name: / Sylvester A Ploof v. Henry W. Putnam
Citation; Date: / October 30, 1908
Court: / Supreme Court of Vermont
Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff: / Sylvester A Ploof- owned the sloop
Defendant: / Henry W. Putnam- owned the island and dock
Facts of the case:
Ploof was sailing with his family on lake Champlain when a violent storm came upon them. In an effort to save his sloop and family, he moored onto Putnam’s dock to ride out the storm. Unbeknownst to Putnam, Putnam’s servant unmoored said sloop because it was a private dock. As a result, the sloop was smashed against the shore, destroying it and injuring its occupants.
Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):
The lower courts ruled in favor of Ploof so Putnam appealed the case until it made its way into the supreme court.
Court opinion (key issues and arguments):
Opinion by Munson. The court ruled in favor of ploof. They recalled Proctor v. Adams in which a similar trespass had occurred only to save goods in danger of being destroyed. In addition, the court stated that in cases where someone has no ability to control their movements (as in a storm), they may enter lands and personal properties that otherwise would have been trespass.
Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments):
N/A
Disposition of case:
Supreme court affirmed lower courts’ decisions but remanded the cause onto lower courts.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

1. Course topic of the case: / (Exercising) Property Rights
2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
This relates to whether or not someone can exercise their property rights if it causes direct harm to a trespasser who was trespassing only for his own safety, and has no other options but to trespass.
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
No cases covered relate to this case.
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
It improves economic efficiency because at the time of trespass, Ploof valued the dock much more than Putnam did, increasing social welfare. It also gives landowners the inventive to allow trespass when there are extenuating circumstances that the trespasser cannot avoid and that may cause physical harm to the trespasser or his goods.