Lexplug logoLexplug

Sullivan v. . Dunham

New York Court of Appeals
1900 N.Y. LEXIS 1439, 161 N.Y. 290, 55 N.E. 923 (1900)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person who, for a lawful purpose, explodes a blast on their own land is strictly liable for any direct physical invasion and resulting injury to a person or property, regardless of whether negligence or a lack of skill is proven.


Facts:

  • The defendants, Dinkel and Jewell, were conducting blasting operations on their own land for a lawful purpose.
  • During the blasting, an explosion was set off.
  • The blast propelled a piece of wood into the air.
  • The decedent was lawfully traveling on a public highway adjacent to the defendants' property.
  • The piece of wood thrown by the blast struck the decedent.
  • The decedent was killed as a result of being struck by the wood.
  • There was no proof that the defendants were negligent or lacked skill in their blasting operation.

Procedural Posture:

  • The decedent's personal representative brought a wrongful death action against the defendants, Dinkel and Jewell, in the trial court.
  • The case was tried before a jury on the theory of trespass.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
  • The defendants appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division.
  • The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 person who lawfully and without negligence explodes a blast on their own land liable for trespass when the blast propels an object onto a public highway, striking and killing a person?


Opinions:

Majority - Vann, J.

Yes. A person who lawfully and without negligence explodes a blast on their own land is liable for trespass when the resulting debris strikes and injures a person in a place they are lawfully present. The court held the defendants liable as trespassers because their action constituted a direct physical invasion of the decedent's right to be safe on a public highway. Relying on the precedent of Hay v. Cohoes Co., the court affirmed the principle that one cannot cast material onto another's property, even in the course of a lawful activity, without being responsible for the damages. It distinguished this case, involving a direct physical invasion, from cases involving consequential damages like concussions or vibrations, where proof of negligence is required. The court reasoned that the safety of persons is more sacred than property and that public policy dictates that the right to public safety on a highway is superior to a landowner's particular use of their property.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the common law distinction between liability for direct versus consequential harm resulting from ultrahazardous activities. By extending the trespass doctrine from Hay v. Cohoes Co. to cover personal injury to an individual on public land, the court established a robust strict liability standard for any physical debris cast by blasting. This precedent makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs injured by such direct invasions to recover, as they are not required to prove negligence. The case reinforces the public policy principle that the risk of harm from inherently dangerous activities should be borne by those who conduct them, not by innocent victims.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Sullivan v. . Dunham (1900) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Sullivan v. . Dunham