Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc.
984 A.2d 210 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
One who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity, such as blasting, is subject to strict liability for harm resulting from that activity, even if the utmost care was exercised to prevent the harm. This overrules prior precedent that required proof of negligence in such cases.
Facts:
- Vera Dyer and her sons, Paul and Robert, owned a family home in Prospect, Maine, that was over seventy years old.
- Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc. (Maine Drilling) notified the Dyers it would begin blasting rock near their home for a bridge construction project starting in October 2004.
- Before blasting began, Maine Drilling conducted a pre-blast survey of the Dyers' home, noting some minor pre-existing cracks, and Richard Dyer also videotaped the home's condition.
- Between October 2004 and August 2005, Maine Drilling conducted over 100 blasts, with the closest being approximately 100 feet from the Dyers' home.
- Vera Dyer was present for at least two blasts and felt the entire house shake.
- In the spring of 2005, after the blasting had begun, the Dyers observed significant new damage to their property, including a dropped basement floor, a sagging support beam, and new or enlarged cracks in the basement and garage floors.
- The Dyers' expert testified that damage could result from blasting even within safety guidelines, particularly if a structure is on 'uncontrolled fill,' which the Dyer home might be.
- Seismograph readings placed by Maine Drilling showed that six of the blasts produced vibrations that exceeded the U.S. Bureau of Mines' 'safe operating envelope' for minimizing property damage.
Procedural Posture:
- The Dyers filed a complaint against Maine Drilling in the Superior Court (Waldo County), a state trial court, alleging strict liability and negligence.
- Maine Drilling filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Maine Drilling.
- The trial court held that existing Maine precedent precluded the strict liability claim and that the Dyers had failed to present sufficient evidence of causation to proceed with their negligence claim.
- The Dyers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Maine Drilling is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Maine common law impose strict liability for damages resulting from abnormally dangerous activities like blasting, thereby overruling precedent that required a showing of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Silver
Yes. Maine law imposes strict liability for harm caused by abnormally dangerous activities. The court adopts the framework of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519-520, which holds a person strictly liable for harm resulting from such activities, regardless of the level of care exercised. The court overrules its prior decision in Reynolds v. W.H. Hinman Co., which required proof of negligence. The court reasoned that the policy justifications for the old negligence rule are outdated, as nearly all other states have adopted strict liability for blasting. Blasting is an inherently dangerous activity, and the costs of any resulting harm should be borne by the party benefiting from the activity, not an innocent neighbor. The Restatement provides a clear, six-factor test to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an activity is abnormally dangerous.
Dissenting - Justice Alexander
No. The court should not overrule its long-standing precedent to create a new common law rule of strict liability for blasting. The doctrine of stare decisis requires compelling reasons to overturn established law, and none exist here because the Dyers could potentially recover under the existing negligence standard as established in Cratty v. Samuel Aceto & Co. Furthermore, the Legislature has already enacted a narrow strict liability statute for blasting in specific circumstances (17 M.R.S. § 2791), and the court's broad new rule renders that statute meaningless surplusage. Such a significant policy change, with potential economic consequences, should be left to the Legislature, not the court.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Saufley
No. The court should not adopt a strict liability cause of action for blasting. Imposing liability without proof of wrongdoing changes a settled business expectation that has existed for over fifty years. This expansion of financial responsibility is being made without any factual record demonstrating its necessity or its potential economic impact on businesses and employment in Maine. It is the wrong jurisprudential approach at the wrong time.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Maine's tort law, explicitly overruling more than fifty years of precedent that required plaintiffs to prove negligence in blasting cases. By adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts' approach to abnormally dangerous activities, the court brings Maine in line with the overwhelming majority of U.S. jurisdictions. This ruling substantially lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs harmed by activities like blasting, as they now only need to prove causation, not a breach of the standard of care. The decision establishes the six-factor test from Restatement § 520 as the new framework for determining on a case-by-case basis which activities will be subject to this strict liability standard.
Unlock the full brief for Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc.