Spano v. Perini Corp.
Facts:
The defendants were contracted to construct a tunnel for New York City. On the day in question, they set off 194 sticks of dynamite to do so at a construction site 125 feet from Spano's garage, which contained Davis's car. Both the garage and the car sustained major damage. No negligence in these blasts was shown.
Procedural History:
Defendant won initially.
Issue:
Can a person who has sustained property damage caused by blasting on nearby property maintain an action for damages without a showing that the blaster was negligent?
Plaintiff's Argument:
Defendant should be absolutely liable for any damage caused by their blasting.
Defendant's Argument:
Defendant should not be liable because no negligence or physical intrusion onto property has been committed, a standard set in Booth v. Rome.
Rule:
Someone who inflicts damage as a result of blasting should be liable for it.
Reasoning:
Defendants caused the damage and thus have more reason to be liable for it than the innocent defendants.
Holding:
Yes, Booth was wrong. Case remanded to confirm evidence of damages.
Takeaway:
Some acts come with strict liability for resulting harms.