Connection lost
Server error
Ploof v. Putnam Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: During a storm, a plaintiff moored his sloop to the defendant’s dock out of necessity. The defendant’s servant unmoored it, causing destruction. The court held the necessity justified the mooring, allowing the plaintiff’s suit.
Legal Significance: Established the doctrine of private necessity, recognizing a privilege to enter or interfere with another’s property to protect persons or property from serious imminent harm, overriding the owner’s right to exclude.
Ploof v. Putnam Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Ploof, was sailing a loaded sloop on Lake Champlain with his wife and two children when a sudden and violent storm arose, placing the vessel, cargo, and occupants in grave danger. To prevent destruction, Ploof moored the sloop to a dock attached to an island owned by the defendant, Putnam. The island and dock were under the care of Putnam’s servant. Acting under Putnam’s authority, the servant unmoored the sloop. Consequently, the storm drove the sloop onto the shore, destroying the vessel and its contents, and injuring Ploof and his family. Ploof sued Putnam, alleging both trespass (claiming the servant willfully unmoored the sloop) and negligence (claiming a duty to allow the sloop to remain moored during the storm). Putnam demurred to both counts, arguing they failed to state a valid cause of action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the doctrine of necessity create a privilege allowing entry upon another’s land or interference with their property to save persons or property from imminent danger, thereby rendering the landowner liable for preventing such entry or interference?
Yes, the plaintiff’s act of mooring the sloop to the defendant’s dock Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lore
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the doctrine of necessity create a privilege allowing entry upon another’s land or interference with their property to save persons or property from imminent danger, thereby rendering the landowner liable for preventing such entry or interference?
Conclusion
Ploof v. Putnam is a foundational case affirming the privilege of private Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Legal Rule
An entry upon the land of another or an interference with personal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiu
Legal Analysis
The court recognized the well-established common law doctrine of necessity, which permits Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Necessity privileges mooring a vessel to another’s dock during a storm