Spano v. Perini Corp.

Facts

Spano owned a garage in Brooklyn. A blast on November 27, 1962 wrecked it. Davis's automobile was in the garage for repairs, and he claimed the blasting damaged it too. The two defendants were joint venturers building a tunnel nearby under a contract with the City of New York. On the day in question they set off a total of 194 sticks of dynamite at a construction site only 125 feet from the garage. Both plaintiffs alleged negligence in their complaints. At trial, though, they made no attempt to show that the defendants failed to use reasonable care or to take necessary precautions. They relied only on absolute liability, meaning liability without proof of fault, either as a tort theory or on the basis of their being third-party beneficiaries of the defendants' contract with the city. The plaintiffs' main causation witness was a contractor who leased part of Spano's premises. He testified that there was no damage before November 27, that he heard an explosion about noon, and that when he returned a few hours later the building was cracked and the floor had popped up. An insurance adjuster said the damage to Davis's car was evidently caused by a concussion. The defendants' expert blamed poor maintenance and building deterioration.

Issues

1. Can a person whose property was damaged by blasting on nearby land recover damages from the blaster without proving that the blaster was negligent?
2. Were the plaintiffs' pleadings and their circumstantial proof that the blasting caused the damage sufficient, and what should happen to the case now that negligence need not be shown?

Holding

The Court of Appeals overruled Booth and held that one who engages in blasting is liable without fault for any injury he causes to neighboring property. The pleadings were adequate and the causation proof was not insufficient as a matter of law, but the Appellate Division had affirmed only for lack of proven negligence, so the case went back for it to weigh the causation evidence.