Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. and the Doctrine of Necessity
Inaugurated October 2005
Introduction
Vincent is one of the best known cases in American law. Those in charge of a ship kept it tied to the plaintiff's pier during a storm without the plaintiff's consent. As a result, the ship was saved but the pier was damaged. The court held the use of the pier was justified. Nevertheless, the ship owner had to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to the pier. Most scholars have agreed with this result and cited Vincent to illustrate the traditional understanding of the doctrine of necessity. In the first article of this Symposium, however, Stephen Sugarman argues that while the use of the pier was permissible, there is no reason the plaintiff should have been compensated. The articles that follow ask which is right: the traditional understanding or the view of Professor Sugarman.
James Gordley, Editor
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
Articles
The “Necessity” Defense And The Failure Of Tort Theory: The Case Against Strict Liability For Damages Caused While Exercising Self-Help In An Emergency
Stephen D. Sugarman
Damages Under the Necessity Doctrine
James Gordley
Necessity and the Logic of Strict Liability
Mark A. Geistfeld
Property Right and Tortious Wrong in Vincent v. Lake Erie
Gregory C. Keating