Ploof v. Putnam

Facts

Ploof's declaration (his written statement of his claim) alleged the following as the ground of recovery. On the 13th day of November, 1904, Putnam owned an island in Lake Champlain with a dock attached, and the island and dock were in the charge of Putnam's servant. Ploof was sailing a loaded sloop on the lake with his wife and two minor children aboard. A sudden and violent tempest arose, placing the sloop, its contents and the people in it in great danger of destruction. To save them from destruction or injury, Ploof was compelled to moor, and did moor, the sloop to Putnam's dock. Putnam, by his servant, then unmoored the sloop, and without any fault of Ploof the tempest drove it upon the shore. The sloop and its contents were destroyed, and Ploof, his wife and his children were cast into the lake and onto the shore and injured. Ploof set out this claim in two counts, one in trespass and one in case.

Issues

1. Does a declaration alleging that a sudden and violent tempest compelled mooring to another's dock plead a necessity sufficient against a general demurrer, without negativing natural objects to which the plaintiff could have moored with equal safety?
2. Do counts alleging that the defendant acted by his servant sufficiently charge that the servant acted within the scope of his employment?

Holding

The counts survived demurrer. The allegation that the stress of a sudden and violent tempest compelled Ploof to moor to Putnam's dock to save the sloop and the people in it stated a complete necessity, and alleging that Putnam acted by his servant necessarily implied that the servant acted within the scope of his employment.