Sullivan v. Dunham

New York Court of Appeals · 1900 · Torts

Tortsstrict liabilityblastingtrespassory damageNew York rulestrict liabilityblastingtrespass

Facts

Defendants exploded a blast on their own land for a lawful purpose and without negligence or want of skill. The blast threw a section of a tree into a public highway, where plaintiff's intestate was lawfully traveling. The wood struck her and caused her death. The case was tried on the theory that defendants were liable as trespassers for this direct invasion of her person.

Issue

Whether a person who, for a lawful purpose and without negligence or lack of skill, sets off a blast on his own land is liable when the blast directly throws material into a public highway and injures a person lawfully there. Put another way, the question is whether such conduct creates trespass liability without regard to negligence.

Rule

When blasting on one's own land directly casts stones, earth, wood, or other material onto another's property or onto the person of someone lawfully where she has a right to be, the actor is liable absolutely as a trespasser, regardless of care, skill, or necessity. But where the injury is not direct and results only from concussion, vibration, or other consequential effects without physical invasion, there is no liability absent negligence.

🔒

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.

In Albany, Nora Kim hired Ridgewell Excavation to blast ledge on land she owned so she could build a warehouse. The crew used proper charges and followed customary safety measures, but a chunk of rock flew over the property line and smashed the windshield of Omar Vega's parked car on the adjoining lot.

If Omar sues on a trespass theory and cannot prove negligence, who is most likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority rule is that one who lawfully blasts on his own land is absolutely liable as a trespasser when the blast directly casts material onto another's property. Care, skill, and the lawfulness or necessity of the work do not matter where there is a direct physical invasion. The doctrine is limited to direct invasion by debris, not all blasting harms generally. (Derived from Sullivan v. Dunham (1900).)