The Roadside Emergency

Question:

Emma is driving along a secluded road when she sees a motorcyclist, Ben, lying injured in a ditch next to a locked, fenced-in private property. She realizes that Ben needs immediate help, as he is bleeding heavily and unable to move. Fearing that waiting for paramedics may worsen Ben’s condition, Emma climbs over the fence, enters the property, and calls for emergency assistance. The property owner, Mr. Lee, later sues Emma for trespass. Analyze Emma’s defense.

Baseline Response

Issue
The issue is whether Emma’s trespass onto Mr. Lee’s property can be legally justified by necessity, specifically whether entering private property without permission was permissible to prevent greater harm to Ben.

Rule
Under the necessity doctrine, individuals may infringe upon another’s property rights when doing so is necessary to prevent serious harm, injury, or death. This privilege applies when an immediate threat exists and a reasonable person would perceive the action as necessary to prevent greater harm. Necessity is a complete defense to trespass when the conduct is proportionate to the risk posed and limited in scope to addressing the emergency.

Application
Applying this principle, Emma’s entry onto Mr. Lee’s property was in response to an emergency. She observed that Ben was seriously injured and unable to move, and a delay in medical assistance might have worsened his condition. Given these circumstances, a reasonable person would likely have deemed it necessary to act quickly. By entering the property to contact emergency services, Emma’s actions directly corresponded with the immediate risk to Ben’s health. Her entry was limited in scope; she only entered as far as necessary to place the call, aligning with the principle that trespass under necessity should be no broader than required to prevent the harm.

Necessity protects against liability when the harm to be avoided is more significant than the harm caused by the trespass. Here, Emma’s brief and minimal entry onto Mr. Lee’s property to secure medical help for Ben aligns with this requirement, as she was attempting to prevent further harm to an injured person and did not damage or interfere with the property beyond the emergency need.

Counterarguments
Mr. Lee could argue that Emma should have sought alternative ways to summon help, such as calling emergency services from the roadside or signaling other drivers. However, Emma could counter that given Ben’s visible injuries, she had no reasonable assurance that another driver or responder would arrive quickly enough. She might argue that the risk to Ben’s health warranted immediate action and that any delay could have posed a substantial risk to his safety.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Emma’s actions are likely to be jusitified. Entering the property was a reasonable and proportionate response to the immediate risk of harm to Ben. Given the limited scope and purpose of her entry, Emma’s defense of necessity would likely succeed, shielding her from liability for trespass.