Thigpen v. Skousen & Hise
64 N.M. 290, 327 P.2d 802 (1958)
Rule of Law:
One who conducts ultrahazardous blasting activities is strictly liable for resulting property damage, whether caused by physical debris or by concussive vibrations, without a need to prove negligence.
Facts:
- A highway contractor conducted blasting operations with dynamite in the vicinity of the plaintiff's building and residence property in Grants, Valencia County, New Mexico.
- As a direct result of these blasting activities, fragments, rocks, and debris were thrown upon and against the plaintiff's buildings.
- The blasting activities also caused shock waves, concussion, and vibrations that passed through or under the plaintiff's buildings.
- The plaintiff's buildings sustained damage from both the debris and the concussion/vibrations.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the defendants in Valencia County, New Mexico, asserting two causes of action: one for damages from physical debris ($6,600) and another for damages from concussion and vibrations ($8,000).
- Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff for $1,165.75 on the first cause of action and $4,000 on the second cause of action.
- Judgment was entered by the trial court for the plaintiff against the defendants in the total sum of $5,165.75.
- Defendants (appellants) prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, seeking the revision and correction of the judgment, specifically challenging the jury instructions regarding liability and the forms of verdict.
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 a highway contractor conducting blasting operations face strict liability for property damage caused by both physical debris and concussive vibrations, or must negligence be proven for damage caused solely by concussion?
Opinions:
Majority - Sadler, Justice
Yes, a highway contractor conducting blasting operations faces strict liability for property damage caused by both physical debris and concussive vibrations. The court affirms that strict liability applies to damage caused by blasting, whether it results from direct trespass by physical objects or from indirect forces like concussion and vibration. The court rejects the historical distinction between liability for direct physical trespass (like thrown rocks) and liability for indirect consequential damages (like concussive vibrations), calling it a "distinction without a difference" and a "marriage of procedural technicality with scientific ignorance." The court emphasizes that in a practical sense, there is no logical difference between damage caused by projected rocks and damage caused by a sudden vacuum shattering buildings. Blasting is recognized as an ultrahazardous activity under the Restatement of Torts §§ 519 and 520, meaning that those who engage in it are liable for harm that results, even if they exercise utmost care, because the risk of serious harm cannot be eliminated. This doctrine, the court concludes, is supported by the weight of authority and sound reason, and is consistent with the principle that private property should not be diminished for public gain without just compensation, representing a societal premium paid to facilitate industrial progress.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for firmly establishing the application of strict liability to all forms of property damage resulting from ultrahazardous blasting activities, effectively abolishing the often-criticized distinction between damage caused by physical debris (trespass) and that caused by concussive vibrations (case). By aligning New Mexico law with the majority view and the Restatement of Torts, the court has simplified the legal landscape for such claims, ensuring that property owners do not need to prove negligence for either type of damage. This ruling places the burden of unavoidable risks associated with inherently dangerous activities squarely on the party conducting them, thus encouraging greater caution and ensuring compensation for those affected, irrespective of the method of damage. It has broad implications for future tort cases involving any ultrahazardous activity.
