6. NECESSITY SUROCCO V. GEARY Facts: o There was a huge fire in SF.

. o 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. o 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. o P sued D for damages. Procedural History: o Trial court found for P, D liable. o CA Court reversed, D not liable. Issues: o whether the person who tears down or destroys the house of another, in good faith, and under apparent necessity, during the time of a conflagration, for the purpose of saving the buildings adjacent, and stopping its progress can be held personally liable in an action by the owner of the property destroyed o 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: o 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: o 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. o In order to avoid liability, the individual must prove that there was a necessity to destroy the property. o 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. o Thus, there can be no recovery since this situation constituted a necessity. Notes: o Privilege of public necessity.