Surocco v. Geary

Nature of the Case

Geary (D) appealed from a judgment which found for Surocco (P) in Surocco’s action for the recovery of damages for the destruction of his house and store.

Facts

A fire was raging in San Francisco. Geary (D), the Alcalde (i.e. municipal magistrate) of San Francisco, destroyed Surocco’s (P) home by blowing it up to prevent a fire from destroying the entire town. Geary destroyed the home while there was still time to salvage the goods and personal belongings. The court gave the verdict to Surocco and Geary appealed.

Issue

Does a person or public officer have a right to pull down a building, acting in good faith for the purpose of preventing the spreading of a public conflagration, without being personally liable therefor in damages?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. A person or a public officer has a right to pull down a building, acting in good faith for the purpose of preventing the spreading of a public conflagration, without being personally liable therefor in damages.

A party will not be personally held liable if he destroys the house of another in good faith, and under the apparent necessity during the time of a conflagration, for the purpose of saving adjacent buildings and stopping the fire. In every case, this privilege exists if the necessity for action is clearly shown.

Necessity provides a privilege for private rights. The private rights of individuals must yield to the public good and the interests of society in public safety. Because of the power of this privilege the existence of necessity must be clearly shown.

State statutory law may determine the amount victims may recover, otherwise the common law must be followed. The evidence shows that the destruction of the house was necessary as it would have been consumed had it been left standing.

Disposition

Judgment reversed.