NationStates Jolt Archive

Generally, there is a defence of necessity that can absolve you, or the state of certain acts, even if they cause you harm. However, particularly where property is damaged, one can be found not guilty of a wrong, but still be required to pay compensation.

Things done for the public good usually escape this need for compensation...pulling down a house next to one that is ablaze, for example.

But imagine the scenario where a hiker, through no fault of his own, is caught in a deadly storm. He took all the necessary precautions, but this storm was unpredictible, and abnormal. The hiker comes across a cabin, breaks a window to get in, starts a fire to keep himself from freezing to death, but uses no more wood (and furniture) for fuel than necessary. He eats only the food he must to sustain himself...not touching the fancy wines or expensive preserves.

He successfully pleads necessity, and is found guilty of no wrong...but he is forced to pay compensation to the owner of the cabin for the broken window, and the fuel and food he consumed.

What are your thoughts on this? Should you have to pay or not?

I agree that he should pay. It's the same as if I was going along in the cold, and decided to buy a jacket to keep me warm. It was necessary, but nothing is free. And in this case, it's theft and the owner should be compensated by *someone*. Generally the taker is the best choice. Better than the government, because then it's me paying for something I had no part in at all.

I agree that he should pay. It's the same as if I was going along in the cold, and decided to buy a jacket to keep me warm. It was necessary, but nothing is free. And in this case, it's theft and the owner should be compensated by *someone*. Generally the taker is the best choice. Better than the government, because then it's me paying for something I had no part in at all.

I think he would be willing to pay...I mean, imagine if you were given that choice...pay me later or die in the cold. No one is going to choose to die. And if the hiker is not the kind of person who would have gone in any way, necessity or not, I'm sure he would feel obligated to repay the owner.

BUT...in almost every other legal situation, you do not have to pay compensation unless you were in the wrong.

In another (real) situation, a boat moored to a dock refused to undock when a massive storm arose...slamming the boat against the dock and causing damage. Undocking likely would have been suicide, but the owners of the boat even though found innocent, had to pay compensation. Even odder though is that if they HAD undocked, and the storm slammed them into the dock, they would have been sued with neglience but likely absolved because of the nature of the storm, and would NOT have had to pay compensation.

Then again, in another case, the roads in a rural area were snowed over, and a few people cut through a farmer's field causing extensive damage. They were found not liable because of necessity, and did not have to pay a cent.

Yes, that's generally the common law.

So what's your question.

Yes, that's generally the common law.

So what's your question.

Whether, despite the law (which will not always require compensation) that compensation should be required, when there is no alternative to the action that causes damage.

I mean, were the owner of the cabin present...what kind of person would refuse entry to someone near to dying, or say, 'hey, I'll warm you and feed you, but you owe me buddy'. So why should it be so different when the owner is gone? (my first reaction to this anyway)

Edit: by the way, the question was at the end of the OP, but I bolded it for ya.

Whether, despite the law (which will not always require compensation) that compensation should be required, when there is no alternative to the action that causes damage.

I mean, were the owner of the cabin present...what kind of person would refuse entry to someone near to dying, or say, 'hey, I'll warm you and feed you, but you owe me buddy'. So why should it be so different when the owner is gone?

The house that is ablaze is already destroyed/ruined, and hence the owner loses whether it is pulled down or not. Also the government or it's agents are pulling it down under the theory of eminent domain.

If the cabin owner was present, they could indeed refuse entry and shelter; breaking into an occupied cabin to steal food would be burglary which is a felony.

However, if the cabin is unoccupied and used as you suggest, then obviously the owner has incurred a cost which they should not normally have to bear and therefore compensation for their loss is fair.

The house that is ablaze is already destroyed/ruined, and hence the owner loses whether it is pulled down or not. Also the government or it's agents are pulling it down under the theory of eminent domain. Actually, the house being pulled down is next to the one that is ablaze, in order to prevent the fire from spreading, and statute quite often now regulates compensation anyway in those situations...I just wanted to point out that compensation is not always required.

If the cabin owner was present, they could indeed refuse entry and shelter; breaking into an occupied cabin to steal food would be burglary which is a felony.

However, if the cabin is unoccupied and used as you suggest, then obviously the owner has incurred a cost which they should not normally have to bear and therefore compensation for their loss is fair.

Yeah, I'm quite aware of the legal arguments, and if I wanted to stick to that, I wouldn't do it here. So going beyond what the law says, how do you FEEL about the hiker paying compensation? Your last statement...that being the argument often used in these cases, is that also your opinion of how it should go?

And what about the guys driving through the farmer's fence and field, but not having to pay compensation? Are you good with that ruling?

Yeah, I'm quite aware of the legal arguments, and if I wanted to stick to that, I wouldn't do it here. So going beyond what the law says, how do you FEEL about the hiker paying compensation? Your last statement...that being the argument often used in these cases, is that also your opinion of how it should go?

And what about the guys driving through the farmer's fence and field, but not having to pay compensation? Are you good with that ruling?

Honestly, if it was a complete white out and the fukers had no-where else to go and just sheltered in my place and had a few cans of soup or such, I wouldn't really give a shit. It is what it is.

However, if they did extensive damage then they should pay for it after the fact.

I am not familiar with the farmers fence thingy. So I can't comment. As far as I know they'd have to pay for it if they were caught.

The difference is benefit and intent.

If you tear down you neighbor's house to create a fire break between a fire and your house so that your house does not catch on fire, then you should (and probaly would if it could be proven) be required to compensate your neighbor. Conversely if one breaks into a cabin and creates a fire to save the lives of 3 people you are hiking with, then you should not be required to compensate the owner.

If the actor is not the primary/direct recipient of the benefit from the act, then they should not be required to compensate the person harmed / although they harmed the person if they did not gain from the act then they should not be required to compensate (although good manners would require one to offer and the harmed person to refuse, so on some level it is required).

Not so hot on the farmer's field ruling. If all the significant facts are as you present, I think the ruling was wrong, the drivers chose to travel accross a farmer's field and recieved the benefit from it. Public necessity (as opposed to individual necessity) may have justified making the farmers field a temporary public access, in which case the farmer should not be allowed to recover his damages as the public is the liable party, but the drivers do not have a right to claim necessity only the public as a whole has the right to claim necessity in a case like that.

Change the scene for Harlem, and he breaks into the apartment of a family on vacation. He still needs to pay.

The house that is ablaze is already destroyed/ruined, and hence the owner loses whether it is pulled down or not. Also the government or it's agents are pulling it down under the theory of eminent domain.

On this basis could we also justify the shooting of people who are infected with virulent and life-threatening infectious diseases?

On this basis could we also justify the shooting of people who are infected with virulent and life-threatening infectious diseases?

Like fascism?

It should depend on the owner of the cabin, who could choose to be paid compensation or decide to let the hiker off, out of the goodness of his/her heart and all that.

Like fascism?

Well, I wasn't just thinking of run of the mile triage in crisis here, but rather say if ebola*-stricken victims refused to accept quarantine and forced themselves into the close company of other non-infected people.


* for example - I know little about the actual virulence or infectious nature of this condition.

Generally, there is a defence of necessity that can absolve you, or the state of certain acts, even if they cause you harm. However, particularly where property is damaged, one can be found not guilty of a wrong, but still be required to pay compensation.

Things done for the public good usually escape this need for compensation...pulling down a house next to one that is ablaze, for example.

But imagine the scenario where a hiker, through no fault of his own, is caught in a deadly storm. He took all the necessary precautions, but this storm was unpredictible, and abnormal. The hiker comes across a cabin, breaks a window to get in, starts a fire to keep himself from freezing to death, but uses no more wood (and furniture) for fuel than necessary. He eats only the food he must to sustain himself...not touching the fancy wines or expensive preserves.

He successfully pleads necessity, and is found guilty of no wrong...but he is forced to pay compensation to the owner of the cabin for the broken window, and the fuel and food he consumed.

What are your thoughts on this? Should you have to pay or not?

Hmm, interesting, (mainly because of the scenario). It's generally accepted in hiking circles (certainly in the UK) that life comes first, and really any obligation to pay is out of the goodness of the hikers heart and situation. It's not uncommon for people using bothys (small shepherds cottages, now used as a dry spot for the night) to leave a bit of firewood and some matches sticking out of the matchbox in case someone comes in in a really bad way. This is less likely in the UK, of course, but the practice prevalent in scandinavia, too. I would say he shouldn't have to pay, but it would be the done thing.

He should pay.

Although he had to do what he did to stay alive, he still damaged their property and should pay for it afterwards.

He shouldn't be found guilty of an offence, but the cabin owners still deserve repayment. If he was a good citizen I could only imagine he would have gladly repayed them afterwards. Their cabin did save his life after all, and I can't imagine it would be a huge sum.

Once he gets back to the civilised world, I reckon he has an obligation to pay for the food and fuel; if he's realy only used the necessaries then it oughtn't be too much anyway.

I am not familiar with the farmers fence thingy. So I can't comment. As far as I know they'd have to pay for it if they were caught.

They were caught, and it went to trial, and no compensation was required. I found out during the review of that case that there there exists in the common law, a right to pass over private lands when public roadways (or other public areas of transporation) are impassible. In fact, before these guys drove over the farmer's land, a bunch of rig workers plowed the road through his land because the county's plow was broken and the road couldn't be cleared.

I mean, cases can go either way, but the guys driving through in this case didn't NEED to drive through...not like the guy in the woods NEEDED to break in.

It should depend on the owner of the cabin, who could choose to be paid compensation or decide to let the hiker off, out of the goodness of his/her heart and all that.

Yeah, and this is what it boils down to for me.

Saying that in emergency situations, or situations of emergency, no damages will be required, is basically legislating charity. There is no choice on the part of the owner to actually say, 'hey, look, you don't have to pay, no worries'. The guy in the hiker case, in my opinion, was a total arse for taking it to court, but despite that, I consider MY cabin and think...do I want anyone coming in and messing with it because it happens to be located in a remote area that is prone to bad storms?

I wouldn't take someone to court for busting in and taking what they absolutely needed...but I want that to be my choice.

Hmm, interesting, (mainly because of the scenario). It's generally accepted in hiking circles (certainly in the UK) that life comes first, and really any obligation to pay is out of the goodness of the hikers heart and situation. It's not uncommon for people using bothys (small shepherds cottages, now used as a dry spot for the night) to leave a bit of firewood and some matches sticking out of the matchbox in case someone comes in in a really bad way. This is less likely in the UK, of course, but the practice prevalent in scandinavia, too. I would say he shouldn't have to pay, but it would be the done thing.

In my culture, there also exists an obligation to restock the stores if you need to use them. It's unthinkable not to...unless one is seriously ill or infirm. But this obligation is not going to extend to everyone, and I'd like the option to recover my stores if they were used.

I'm weird that way, I voted yes, if I were the hiker I'd feel obligated to compensate the owner, but on the other hand if I were the owner I wouldn't expect compensation.

As for the people turning the farmer's field into a temporary public access, that's worth a lot more than a couple of cans of soup and a few fireplace logs. I think the county should pay up.