## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned a dock/wharf in Duluth, Minnesota.
- Defendant owned the steamship *Reynolds*, which was moored to plaintiffs’ dock to discharge cargo.
- After unloading was completed, a severe northeast storm intensified, with winds reaching roughly 50 mph and making navigation in the harbor impracticable.
- Defendant signaled for a tug to remove the vessel from the dock, but none could be obtained due to storm conditions.
- Defendant kept the vessel secured to the dock; when lines parted or chafed, they were replaced, sometimes with larger lines.
- Wind and waves repeatedly lifted and pushed the vessel against the dock, damaging the dock.
- A jury found dock damage of $500.
- Defendant maintained that its conduct was compelled by the emergency and was prudent; plaintiffs sought damages for the harm to the dock.

## Issues

1. Whether a shipowner acting under private necessity may remain moored to another’s dock to protect its vessel during a storm.
2. Whether, despite reasonable and prudent conduct, the shipowner must compensate the dock owner for damage caused by intentionally maintaining the mooring.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed judgment for plaintiffs for $500.
- The court found the master acted prudently in not attempting to leave the dock or let the ship drift during the storm.
- The court held that, although the necessity justified remaining moored, the shipowner was liable for damage to the dock caused by intentionally keeping the vessel secured to it to preserve the ship.

## Legal Principles

- Private necessity is a qualified privilege: it justifies intentional use or interference with another’s property to protect one’s own interests in an emergency.
- The privilege negates liability for technical trespass but does not excuse responsibility for actual harm caused to the other’s property.
- When an actor deliberately uses another’s property as a means of self-preservation, loss from resulting damage is allocated to the actor who benefits, even absent negligence.
- The case is distinguished from situations where damage is solely attributable to an unavoidable accident without intentional, continuing use of another’s property.

## Conclusion

A shipowner may, out of private necessity, keep a vessel moored to another’s dock during a storm to avoid greater loss, but must pay for the dock damage caused by that intentional, necessary use, even when the conduct is careful and reasonable.


Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co., 109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1910)