(DOWNLOAD) "Michael Crocker v. W. W. Wyman" by Supreme Court of New Hampshire # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Michael Crocker v. W. W. Wyman
- Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Release Date : January 31, 1954
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
The law relating to liability for damages caused by blasting varies with various jurisdictions. See anno. 20 A. L. R. (2d)
1374. By the weight of authority, liability without regard to negligence is imposed for direct injury to property by the casting
against it of rocks or other debris from blasting. Where the injury results from concussion or vibration alone, the same rule
is applied in some jurisdictions. Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Company, 137 Conn. 562; Hickey v. McCabe & Bihler , 30 R. I.
346; Federoff v. Harrison Constr. Co., 362 Pa. 181; Exner v. Sherman Power Const. Co., 54 F. (2d) 510. And see, Restatement,
Torts, s. 519, s. 520, comment c ; Gregory: Trespass to Negligence to Absolute Liability, 37 Va. L. Rev. 359, 380, 395; Prosser,
Torts, s. 59. In other jurisdictions, notably in New York, proof of negligence is required in the latter class of cases. Booth
v. Rome W. & O. T. R. Co., 140 N. Y. 267; Jenkins v. A. G. Thomasello & Son, Inc., 286 Mass. 180; Reynolds v. Hinman
Co., 145 Me. 343. No cases directly in point in this jurisdiction have been found or called to our attention. In Bassett v. Dodge, 77 N.H.
602, the defendant's motion for a nonsuit was held to have been properly denied in an action to recover for the negligent
burning of the plaintiff's building in consequence of a fuse being blown onto a roof by explosion of a charge of dynamite
a few yards from the building. The evidence of the defendant's fault was held to present a jury question of "whether the ordinary
man would have exploded such a blast, in such a place, in such a way, on such a day, without doing anything whatever to protect
the plaintiff's buildings." In Honnon v. Kerr, 85 N.H. 386, the issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an instruction
that the defendant was liable for damages caused by the use of dynamite when he had no permit from local authorities to use
the dynamite. In entering judgment for the defendant, the court held the statute applicable only to sale, transportation,
and storage of dynamite and not to its use in business, commenting that regulation of business use had not been thought necessary.
"Careful use is required regardless of the statute, reasonable anticipation of the results of its use is a duty of care, and
care may mean every precaution human ingenuity may suggest. Blaisdell v. Company, 75 N.H. 497." Id., 388. No claim of absolute
liability at common law appears to have been advanced.