Brief Fact Summary. Vibrations from the Defendant, Preston Mill Co’s (Defendant), blasting operations caused the Plaintiff, B.W. Foster’s (Plaintiff) mother mink to kill her kittens. Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant claiming absolute liability.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When strict liability is applicable, it will be confined to the consequences, which lie within the extraordinary risk created by the abnormally dangerous activity.
The courts hold quite uniformly that irrespective of negligence one lawfully engaged in blasting operations is liable for property damage sustained as a result of casting rocks or other debris on adjoining or neighboring premises, and cases from numerous jurisdictions there cited.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Is Defendant liable for the death of the kittens under a theory of absolute liability?
Held. No. Judgment reversed.
* Strict liability is often imposed in blasting cases. However, the strict liability should be confined to consequences lying within the extraordinary risk of the abnormally dangerous activity. The extraordinary risk in this case is not a risk that vibrations from the blast will cause wild animals to kill their young. In fact, it was found by the trial court that Defendant’s blasting was not a nuisance to anyone except for Plaintiff’s mink ranch. Therefore, the exceedingly nervous disposition of the mink must be the responsibility of the loss sustained.
Discussion. Although blasting is generally considered an abnormally dangerous activity, courts generally will not apply strict liability to hypersensitive reactions to these activities.