Spano v. Perini Corp. case brief summary
250 N.E.2d 31 (N.Y. 1969)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was the owner of a garage that was damaged by a blast. At the time of the blast, a car, owned by plaintiff car owner, was in the garage for repairs. Plaintiff car owner also claimed that his car was damaged by the blast. Both plaintiffs sued defendants, who were engaged in constructing a tunnel in the vicinity. Judgments were rendered in favor of plaintiffs. The judgments were reversed by the appellate term and the appellate division affirmed that order, granting leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
DISCUSSION
The court of appeals reversed the lower court's judgment affirming reversal, holding that one who engaged in blasting must assume responsibility, and be liable without fault, for any injury caused to neighboring property. The court thereby overruled Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. R. Co., 140 N.Y. 267.
CONCLUSION
The court of appeals reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that one who engaged in blasting must assume responsibility, and be liable without fault, for any injury caused to neighboring property.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
250 N.E.2d 31 (N.Y. 1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiffs appealed
judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First
Judicial Department (New York) reversing judgment in favor of
appellants in strict liability tort action.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff was the owner of a garage that was damaged by a blast. At the time of the blast, a car, owned by plaintiff car owner, was in the garage for repairs. Plaintiff car owner also claimed that his car was damaged by the blast. Both plaintiffs sued defendants, who were engaged in constructing a tunnel in the vicinity. Judgments were rendered in favor of plaintiffs. The judgments were reversed by the appellate term and the appellate division affirmed that order, granting leave to appeal to the court of appeals.
DISCUSSION
The court of appeals reversed the lower court's judgment affirming reversal, holding that one who engaged in blasting must assume responsibility, and be liable without fault, for any injury caused to neighboring property. The court thereby overruled Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. R. Co., 140 N.Y. 267.
CONCLUSION
The court of appeals reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that one who engaged in blasting must assume responsibility, and be liable without fault, for any injury caused to neighboring property.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment