Spano
v. Perini Corp. case summaryCitation.
25 N.Y.2d 11, 250
N.E.2d 31, 302 N.Y.S.2d 527, on remand, 33 A.D.2d 516, 304 N.Y.S.2d
15 (N.Y. 1969).
***
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
***
Summary. In the
course of constructing a tunnel, Defendants set off a large quantity
of dynamite that allegedly damaged Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs
brought suit, claiming negligence but failing to offer any evidence
that Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care. Plaintiffs relied
instead upon a theory of absolute liability for blasting operations
and received a favorable verdict, but Defendants won reversal of the
verdict on appeal.
Rule of Law. In the
case blasting operations, failure to prove negligence will not bar
recovery when damage to an innocent party results from the blasting.
Because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity, public policy
requires that the costs of the damage resulting to innocent parties
be borne by those undertaking the blasting, even when they have not
behaved negligently.
Facts.
Plaintiffs' property
was allegedly damaged as a result of blasting operations undertaken
by Defendants. Plaintiffs brought suit to recover for these damages,
but were unable to show that Defendants had acted negligently.
Plaintiffs thus sought to recover on the theory that those engaged in
blasting are subject to liability for damages resulting from the
blasting even in the absence of a showing of negligence. This was the
rule in the majority of jurisdictions at the time, but not in New
York. Plaintiffs were awarded a verdict at trial, but that verdict
was reversed on appeal.
Issue.
Was the Appellate
Division correct in upholding the appellate term's reversal of the
verdict in favor of the Plaintiff because there was no evidence of
negligence on the part of the Defendant?
Holding.
No. The Appellate
Division's decision was reversed and the cause was remanded to the
Appellate Division for an inquiry into the weight of the evidence
with respect to the cause of the damages.
- • The majority rule that those engaged in blasting are subject to liability for the resulting damages is adopted, supplanting New York's previous rule that proof of negligence was required for recovery in such cases unless a physical trespass also occurred.
- • Public policy requires that those engaging in abnormally dangerous or ultra hazardous activity bear the cost of the damages such activity inflicts upon innocent parties.
Analysis.
This case helps
reintroduce concepts of no-fault liability to the law of torts. These
notions of strict or absolute liability for blasting and other "ultra
hazardous" or "abnormally
dangerous" activity would seem to buck the trend toward
requiring fault or wrongdoing as a prerequisite to recovery.
- • This case also marks an interesting example of public policy analysis. The Court explicitly mentions public policy and places great emphasis upon its relevance in finding the appropriate rule. This is illustrative of some of the many competing issues in the law of torts, many of which will be addressed later and in greater detail.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment