D's blasting operations caused noise and shaking in P's place of business.
P's minks became frightened and killed their kittens.
P sued D upon a theory of strict liability for blasting.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P, strict liability imposed.
WA Supreme Court reversed, strict liability not appropriate.
Issues:
Is a party who is engaged in an activity which imposes strict liability responsible for all damages resulting from the activity?
Holding/Rule:
A party who is engaged in an activity which imposes strict liability is only responsible for damages that result from the properties that make the activity ultra-hazardous. (proximate cause issue)
Reasoning:
Strict liability should be confined to consequences which lie within the extraordinary risk whose existence calls for such responsibility.
D's conduct is not the proximate cause of this damage.
The thing which makes blasting ultra-hazardous is the risk that property or persons may be damaged or injured by coming into direct contact with flying debris, or by being directly affected by vibrations of earth or concussions of the air.
It is the exceedingly nervous disposition of mink, rather than the normal risks inherent in blasting operations, which therefore must, as a matter of sound policy, bear the responsibility for the loss here sustained.
