Surocco v. Geary, Supreme Court of CA, 1853 Could one be liable for destroying someone’s house during a conflagration (in a case of a public emergency) in order to save other buildings and prevent Issue
the spread of fire?
Reasoning
The right to destroy property to prevent the spread of a conflagration has been traced to the highest law of necessity, and the natural rights of man. Clear from the evidence that the house was going to be destroyed anyway by the fire. If D was going to wait until the property was taken out, then that would’ve been too late. It is very clear that there was a necessity here and that the destruction was necessary. Legislature should determine the manner the manner in which buildings may be destroyed in such cases, and the mode in which compensation shall be made.
Rule
One who destroys the house of another
Facts
During the intense and uncontrollable fire of 12/24/1849, D, who at the time was the mayor/magistrate of SF ordered the destruction of P’s house in order to slow the spread of the fire. At the time, P was getting his property out of the house and believed that he could’ve gotten even more out had he not been prevented. Conflagration of 12/24/1849.
During a public emergency Is not liable
Individual rights of property give way to the higher laws of impending necessity.
Held Procedure P argues D argues
Judgment reversed. P brought an action to recover damages. Verdict was given in P’s favor. D appeals