## Facts

- A major fire broke out in San Francisco on December 24, 1849, threatening to spread through the city.
- Pascal Surocco and others owned a house and store situated in the fire’s path.
- John W. Geary, acting as First Alcalde and pursuant to municipal direction, ordered and helped blow up the building with gunpowder to stop the fire’s spread.
- Evidence indicated the fire quickly reached the site and continued beyond it, and the building would have been destroyed by the fire if not demolished first.
- At the time of demolition, the owners were removing goods and asserted they would have saved more property absent the demolition.
- The owners sued Geary for damages for destruction of the structure and loss of goods; Geary asserted justification based on necessity to prevent a public conflagration.

## Issues

1. Whether a public official (or other actor) who destroys another’s building in good faith and under actual or apparent necessity during a conflagration to prevent spread is personally liable in tort.
2. Whether such emergency destruction constitutes a taking of private property for public use requiring compensation.
3. Whether the owners may recover for goods they contend they could have removed but for the demolition.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment for the owners.
- The court held Geary was privileged to destroy the building under the doctrine of public necessity and was not personally liable when acting in good faith under apparent necessity to stop a city fire.
- The court rejected the argument that the demolition was a compensable taking for public use.
- The court stated the owners could not recover for goods they might have saved, because those goods were subject to the same emergency necessity as the building.

## Legal Principles

- Public necessity privileges destruction of private property where, during an imminent public disaster, the actor in good faith reasonably believes destruction is necessary to prevent greater harm; in that setting, there is no personal tort liability.
- Buildings on fire, and buildings so situated as to communicate flames, may be treated as a nuisance that may be abated to protect the community.
- The necessity must be clearly shown, but the reasonableness of the decision is assessed in light of emergency conditions; absent actual or apparent necessity, the actor remains liable in trespass.
- Emergency destruction to avert imminent harm is distinct from eminent domain; it is not a taking for public use requiring compensation.
- Owners may not recover for the value of goods they could have removed but for the emergency demolition, because personal property is equally subject to the demands of the occasion.

## Conclusion

The court held that demolition of a private building to halt a spreading fire, when done in good faith under actual or apparent necessity, is privileged under public necessity, creates no personal tort liability, and does not trigger compensation as a taking; related losses of goods that might have been saved are likewise unrecoverable.


Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (Cal. 1853)