Issues in Legal Scholarship

Symposium: 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.