Spano v. Perini Corp.

New York Court of Appeals · 1969 · Torts

Tortsstrict liabilityblastingconcussionphysical damagestrict liabilityabsolute liabilityblasting

Facts

Defendants, as joint venturers constructing a tunnel for the City of New York, set off 194 sticks of dynamite at a site about 125 feet from plaintiff Spano's garage. Spano's garage was wrecked, and plaintiff Davis's automobile, which was in the garage for repairs, was also allegedly damaged. Plaintiffs did not attempt to prove negligent blasting; instead, they relied on absolute liability and introduced evidence on damages and causation. Evidence showed no prior damage, an explosion was heard around noon, and shortly afterward the building and car showed damage that one expert attributed to concussion.

Issue

May a person whose property is damaged by blasting on nearby property recover without proving negligence, even when there was no physical invasion of the property by debris or other material? Also, was the proof of causation legally sufficient to allow the case to proceed under that rule?

Rule

One who engages in blasting must assume responsibility and is liable without fault for any injury caused to neighboring property. Proof of negligence is not required, and liability does not depend on an actual physical invasion or trespass such as rocks or debris being cast onto the property.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Redstone Excavation, a private contractor, used dynamite to break bedrock for a parking structure in Buffalo. Shortly after a scheduled blast, Priya Desai discovered that the walls of her adjoining print shop had cracked, but she has no evidence that the contractor used unreasonable methods.

If Priya sues for the property damage, which is the strongest argument for recovery?

Explanation. The majority held that one who engages in blasting is liable without fault for injury caused to neighboring property. The rule does not require proof of negligence, unlawfulness, or a deviation from custom. It rests on the dangerous character of blasting and allocates the loss to the blaster rather than the innocent neighbor.