P owned a garage that was damaged when D set off 194 sticks of dynamite about 100 feet from the garage.
P claimed negligence as the basis for liability but could not prove lack of due care by D.
Procedural History:
Lower court found for P.
Appellate court reversed, found for D.
COA NY reversed, found for P.
Issues:
Can a party who has sustained property damages caused by blasting recover without a showing of negligence by the D?
Holding/Rule:
A party who has sustained property damages caused by blasting may recover without a showing of negligence by the D.
Reasoning:
Traditional law requires that P must make a showing of negligence in blasting cases unless there is a physical invasion of the P's property.
However, D stores dangerous explosives, very likely to cause damage to property. Such damage may not be guarded against even with the highest degree of care.
The question is not whether the actions of D were lawful or not. The question is who should bear the loss when an injury occurs through blasting.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Public policy a concern here. Takes us back towards strict liability.
