The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-25


 A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island as to the strict liability to which a person may be held for damages by blasting is of interest in New York where the courts have held that the element of negligence must be shown before a The Rhode Island court in Hickey vs. McCabe CTS Atl., 4O4), holds that "the we'll settled rule that negligence need not be shown to recover for damages caused by matter being thrown by blasting on adjoining land applies also to recovery for damages result ing to/adjoining property from blast ing and other operations in the con struction of railroad tunnel, causing vibration or concussion, though no ! matter was thrown on the adjoining 1and''
 The rule in New York State, which has recently been administered by the First Appellate Division in Derrick vs Kelly, is that one setting off blast without neglecting proper pre- cautions is not liable for injuries to adjoining property caused merely by concussion or vibration. This is also the rule in New Jersey, as laid down in Simon lvs. Henry (62, N. J. L., 486). A discussion of the subject by the Rhode Island Supreme Court is also found in the recent case Wells vs. Knight (S0 Att, 16), which shows har- mony between the Rhode Island and New York courts on the question of liability for damages for trespass through actually throwing stones or other objects in blasting upon ones own premises. The court says that irrespective of the question Of negi- gence it constitutes a treSpaSS for one blasting on his own land to throw a stone hitting a traveller on the high way. In reaching this conclusion the court relies on New York cases.
 The court said that the rule of law is the same in the case of injuries to persons as in damage to property, and the same rules apply in case of a person killed or injured while travel ing on the highway. The New York case of Sullivan vs. Durham is refer red to, in which the court said that the main question was whether a per- son who for lawful purpose and without negligence Or lack of skill eX- plodes blast upon his own land and causes a piece of wood to fall upon one travelling on the public highway is liable for the injury thus inflicted. After referring to various cases the New York court said:
 These were cases of trespasS upon lands, while the case before us Nin- wolves trespass upon the person of a human being, when she was where she had the right of protection from injury the same as if she was walking on her own land. AS the safety of a person is more sacred than the safety of property, the cases cited here gov ern our decision unless they are no longer the law.
 The New York court referred to St. Peter vs. Denison (5S N. Y, 416), where a man employed upon the land of an- other as a workman was killed by r,io nf oftI1 hxr a blast set off by the defendant and said: "This case is analogous to the one before us because the person in jured did not own the land upon which he stood when struck, but he had a right to stand there, the same as the upon the highway. We see no dis tinction in principle between the two caSes.''
 The case of Hay vs. Cohoes Co.,, e N. Y., 159) is also reviewed and the court says:
 We think that the Hay case has always been recognized by this court as sound and valuab eauthority. Af- ter standing for fifty years as the law of the State upon the subject it should not be disturbed, and we have no in- clination to disturb it. It rests upon the principle founded in public poli- CIV that the safety of property gener- ally is superior in right to particu- lar use of single piece of property by it's owner. It renders the enjoy ment of all property more secure by preventing such a use of one piece by one man as may injure all his neighborS. It makes human life safer by tending to prevent a land owner from casting either with or without negligence, a part of his land upon the person of one who is where he had a right to be. It so applies the maxim of sic utere tuo as to pro- tect person and property from direct physical vioIence, which although ac- were intentional It lessens the hardship of placing absolute liability |.upon the one who causes the injury. The court remarks that the acci- dent in question was a great miSfOr- tune to the defendants, but it was a greater misfortune to the young wo- man who was killed, and concludes: The safety of travellers upon the public highway is more important to the State than the improvem of one piece of property by a special method is to its owner. As was said by the Supreme Court of Indiana in travel must not be endangered to ac- commodate the private rights of indi- viduals." We think the courts be- low were right in holding the defen- dants liable as trespassers, regardless of the cart they may have used in doing the work. Their action was .li- rect invasion of the rights of the per son injured, who was lawfully in a public highway, which was a safe place until they made it otherwise by throwing into it the section of a tree.