25 N.Y.2d 11 (1969)
One who engages in blasting is strictly liable for any injury caused to neighboring property, regardless of negligence.
Summary
Spano sued Perini Corp. for property damage to his garage and a customer’s car caused by blasting during the construction of a tunnel. Spano argued for strict liability, while Perini contended that negligence must be proven, citing the precedent set in Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. R. Co. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling, holding that blasting is an inherently dangerous activity warranting strict liability for resulting damages to neighboring properties, regardless of whether there was a physical trespass or proof of negligence. The court explicitly overruled the prior holding in Booth.
Facts
Spano owned a garage in Brooklyn. Davis was a customer whose car was in the garage for repairs. Perini Corp. was engaged in blasting as part of a tunnel construction project approximately 125 feet from Spano’s garage. On November 27, 1962, Perini detonated 194 sticks of dynamite. The blast caused significant damage to Spano’s garage, including cracks in the walls, broken windows, and damage to the cement floor. Davis’s car, inside the garage, also sustained damage.
Procedural History
Spano and Davis sued Perini in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, and the trial court ruled in favor of Spano and Davis. The Appellate Term reversed the judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Appellate Term’s order. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a person who sustains property damage caused by blasting on nearby property can maintain an action for damages without showing that the blaster was negligent.
Holding
Yes, because one who engages in blasting must assume responsibility and be liable without fault for any injury he causes to neighboring property.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the traditional rule requiring proof of negligence in blasting cases (established in Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. R. Co.) was outdated and inconsistent with both the majority of American jurisdictions and earlier New York cases. The court emphasized that blasting is an inherently dangerous activity, stating that “blasting involves a substantial risk of harm no matter the degree of care exercised.” The court noted that earlier cases like Hay v. Cohoes Co. and Heeg v. Licht had established absolute liability for damages caused by explosions, even absent physical trespass. The court found the distinction made in Booth between direct physical invasion and damage caused by concussion to be artificial and irrelevant. The court also refuted the policy rationale in Booth that strict liability would hinder development, arguing that the question was not whether blasting was lawful but who should bear the cost of resulting damages: “The question, in other words, was not whether it was lawful or proper to engage in blasting but who should bear the cost of any resulting damage—the person who engaged in the dangerous activity or the innocent neighbor injured thereby.” The court concluded that it was fairer and more logical to impose the risk of loss on the blaster rather than the innocent neighbor. The court explicitly overruled Booth, holding that strict liability applies to blasting damage regardless of negligence or physical trespass.