Spano v. Perini Corp.
No reporter information provided (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who engages in blasting is strictly liable for any injury they cause to neighboring property, regardless of whether they were negligent.
Facts:
- The defendants, a joint venture including Perini Corp., were engaged in constructing a tunnel for the City of New York.
- On November 27, 1962, the defendants detonated a total of 194 sticks of dynamite at a construction site.
- The blast site was located 125 feet away from a garage owned by plaintiff Spano.
- The blast wrecked Spano's garage.
- An automobile owned by plaintiff Davis, which was inside the garage for repairs, was also damaged by the blast.
Procedural Posture:
- Spano and Davis each brought suit against the defendants in the Civil Court of the City of New York.
- Following a non-jury trial, the trial court rendered judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Term, which reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Appellate Term.
- The Appellate Division then granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a party who engages in blasting strictly liable for property damage caused by the blast, even without a showing of negligence or physical trespass by debris?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Fuld
Yes. One who engages in blasting must assume responsibility and be liable without fault for any injury caused to neighboring property. The court explicitly overrules its 1893 decision in Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. R. Co., which required proof of negligence unless there was a physical trespass. The court reasons that the question is not whether it is lawful to engage in blasting, but who should bear the cost of resulting damage—the person engaged in the dangerous activity or the innocent neighbor. Public policy dictates that the party conducting the ultrahazardous activity should bear the cost. Blasting involves a substantial risk of harm regardless of the degree of care exercised, so there is no reason to permit the blaster to impose this risk on others without assuming responsibility. This decision aligns New York with the overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in New York tort law by explicitly overruling 76 years of precedent established by the Booth case. It formally adopts the rule of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities like blasting, bringing New York into conformity with the majority of other states and the Restatement of Torts. By removing the requirement to prove negligence, the court made it substantially easier for innocent property owners to recover for damages caused by such activities. This case solidifies the principle that liability can attach to the nature of the activity itself, not just the manner in which it is conducted, thereby allocating the risk of loss to the party best able to control the dangerous activity and insure against it.
