D was a city official and decided that blowing up P's property would prevent the spread of the fire, so D blew up P's property.
P was in the process of removing his belongings from the house when it was blown up. P claimed that he could have recovered more if it had not been blown up.
P sued D for damages.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P, D liable.
CA Court reversed, D not liable.
Issues:
Is a person liable to a property owner for destruction of property if they destroyed the property in good faith and under the necessity of preventing future harm?
Holding/Rule:
A person is not liable to a property owner for destruction of property if they destroyed the property in good faith and under the necessity of preventing future harm.
Reasoning:
In situations where there is great risk for public harm, private rights of individuals yield to the considerations of general convenience and the interest of society.
In order to avoid liability, the individual must prove that there was a necessity to destroy the property.
The legislature of each state can regulate this by determine how structures may be destroyed and much the property owner can recover. Without such regulation, common law must be followed.
Thus, there can be no recovery since this situation constituted a necessity.
