Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:57:39 -0500

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: Necessity Symposium

Dear Colleagues:

There are an interesting number of articles from a symposium on necessity posted on: http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss7/.

Some of you might find them interesting. The theme of the symposium is as follows:

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. and the Doctrine of Necessity
Inaugurated October 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's 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

Stephen D. Sugarman
The "Necessity" Defense And The Failure Of Tort Theory: The Case Against Strict Liability For Damages Caused While Exercising Self-Help In An Emergency

James Gordley
Damages Under the Necessity Doctrine

Lewis N. Klar
The Defence Of Private Necessity In Canadian Tort Law

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>