I thought the part of the boat case was that the owner of the dock couldn't go out and untie the boat, but the boat owner had to pay for dock damages. Maybe I'm misremembering.
That is my understanding as well.
barbelldreams wrote:The classic boat example works because the DEFENDANT would die in the storm if he didnt land his boat, not his BOAT would be destroyed. I guess I don't see the severity requirement met when its a piece of property and not a person in danger.
From the Themis outline: "A defendant who acts to prevent a threatened injury from some source of nature or other independent cause that is not connected with the plaintiff is said to be acting under necessity. Defendants acting under necessity have the right to use the property of others to save their own lives or more valuable property
Here, the defendant was acting to prevent threatened water damage to his car due to flooding by nature, which was not caused by the plaintiff.
This same page in the outline lists the boat example, and points out that the boat is valuable and will be damaged or destroyed in the storm.
I guess it could also be argued that the defendant here could have been killed if he had continued to drive in rising flood waters...