Title: Thigpen v. Skousen & Hise
Citation: 327 P.2d 802, 64 N.M. 290
Docket Number: 6390
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 1958

327 P.2d 802 (1958) 64 N.M. 290 W. W. THIGPEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SKOUSEN &amp; HISE, a co-partnership composed of W. J. Skousen and E. R. Hise, Defendants-Appellants. No. 6390. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 9, 1958. *803 Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl &amp; Harris, Botts, Botts &amp; Mauney, Albuquerque, for appellants. Chavez, Cowper &amp; Martinez, Belen, for appellee. SADLER, Justice. We are called upon to decide the liability of a highway contractor conducting blasting operations with dynamite in the vicinity of a certain building and residence property of plaintiff in the town of Grants in Valencia County, New Mexico, in damages resulting both from rock, dirt and debris cast upon the buildings as a result of the detonations and, as well, from the concussion and vibrations suffered by the buildings as a result of the explosions. The cause was tried by a jury in Valencia County on an amended complaint and answer. The plaintiff (appellee here) prayed judgment in the sum of $6,600 as damages for rocks and other debris thrown onto and against the buildings in his first cause of action. In his second cause of action, he asked damages in the sum of $8,000 for damages to the foundation, walls and structure of said buildings from the concussion and vibrations caused by the explosions. Following trial the jury returned into court verdicts in favor of plaintiff for $1,165.75 on the first cause of action and $4,000 on the second cause of action. Accordingly, judgment was entered for plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $5,165.75 for the revision and correction of which the defendants have prosecuted this appeal. Points I and II may very well be treated together since each relates to claimed error in the giving of certain instructions, Nos. 6 and 7. These instructions read, as follows: It will be observed from a reading of these instructions that, in effect, the defendants are to be held liable to plaintiff on each cause of action within the amount claimed, if the jury find the damage to his buildings was a direct result of the blasting operations of the defendants. The defendants through their counsel requested the court to instruct the jury, as follows: Thus it is that the court was asked to instruct the jury according to the plaintiff's theory of liability. It is equally obvious that as to each cause of action the jury was told the defendants were liable to plaintiff, irrespective of negligence, if the plaintiff's damage resulted proximately from the defendant's blasting operations, leaving the jury only the question of damages to determine. In other words, the court treated defendants as subject to strict liability if the damages resulted from their blasting. The plaintiff is supported in the position he takes by the great weight of authority. In 22 Am.Jur., 179-180, §§ 53 and 54, the text states: The doctrine stems from an early English case, Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330, frequently given as the case launching the old doctrine, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. Restatement of the Law of Torts, §§ 519 and 520, deals with ultrahazardous activities, of which blasting is one, as follows: There is a well recognized distinction in some of the explosion cases between damage from rocks and debris thrown on a building, in which recovery is allowed, irrespective of negligence, and damage caused by concussion or shock waves, as to which recovery must rest upon fault. Touching this distinction, Prosser on Torts makes some rather caustic remarks while discussing it. Indeed, a very illuminating treatment of the whole subject of strict liability, especially as applied in the American cases, will be found in the 1955 Edition of Prosser on Torts, pp. 331 to 338. Among other things, the author states: Unquestionably, the recognized weight of authority, and sound reason, as well, support the proposition that strict liability results, and should be imposed, whether the damage to a neighbor's property be caused by stones, dirt and other debris cast on his buildings and land, or results from vibrations and concussions due to the explosion. It is a distinction without a difference to classify the former injury as resulting from an invasion of one's property a trespass and deny character to the other, as being of the same kind. In either case, it is energy projected onto and into a neighbor's property and to call one a trespass, subject to strict liability, and the other not, is to juggle with the meaning of words. See Exner v. Sherman Power Construction Co., 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 510, 80 A.L.R. 686; Garden of the Gods Village, Inc., v. Hellman, 133 Colo. 286, 294 P.2d 597; Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott &amp; Watrous Engineering Co., 137 Conn. 562, 79 A.2d 591, and Annotations in 92 A.L.R. 741 and 26 A.L.R.2d 1372. In the Exner case, supra, [54 F.2d 513] Circuit Judge Augustus N. Hand, writing for the United States Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, summed up the matter in these persuasive words, to-wit: We could extend our remarks at great length in support of the conclusion reached on this question without affording it needed support. It suffices to say we are well satisfied of its correctness. Indeed, one can not avoid the feeling that this doctrine finds its rationale in the constitutional guaranty that one shall not be stripped of his private property for public gain without just compensation, the doctrine resting in the end upon a premium the members of society pay to remove a roadblock to industrial progress. Counsel for defendants realized as much, as to damage resulting from rocks and debris thrown on plaintiff's buildings, in the language of their specially requested instruction No. 2, quoted supra. It was only as to the damage from concussions and vibrations following the explosion that they sought to inject the factor of negligence as a condition to recovery. As we think we have demonstrated, the better *807 reasoned decisions, as well as the greater number, oppose them on this proposition. The defendants also feel aggrieved because the trial court failed to submit this case to the jury on the theory of negligence in conformity with the plaintiff's pleadings, as appraised by them. Indeed, their counsel seemed somewhat confused in the beginning as to whether negligence was a factor to be considered as to both causes of action, or only that one, the second, setting up injury to plaintiff's buildings resulting from concussions and vibrations. In their objections to the court's instructions Nos. 6 and 7, counsel for defendants sought to tie plaintiff to the theory of no liability without fault as to a recovery under both the first and second causes of action, that is, whether the damage was caused by debris thrown on plaintiff's buildings by the blast; or, by vibrations and shock from the concussions. Whatever their initial views, they finally came around to an admission that the strict liability was appropriate only to damage from rocks and debris, confining negligence as a factor to such damage as resulted from concussions and vibrations. Note their position from defendants' requested instruction No. 2, quoted supra, which the court refused. We think the court could not have been in doubt as to the plaintiff's position, after the following remarks from one of his counsel in resisting defendants' motion to dismiss the second cause of action, to-wit: Furthermore, if following counsel's remarks, counsel for defendants were surprised in any way by the presence of allegations of negligence in Count No. 2, they might have asked the court to compel plaintiff to elect on which theory he would proceed, or for delay if they felt prejudiced by the presence of such allegations in the complaint. No such motion was made, nor is there any claim even now that the defendants were prejudiced. We see no error. Compare, Valdez v. Azar Bros., 33 N.M. 230, 264 P. 962, and Williams v. Kemp, 33 N.M. 593, 273 P. 12. The defendants also complain of the forms of verdict submitted to the jury. They were, as follows: The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff for $1,165.75 on the first cause of action and for $4,000 on the second cause of action. When the instructions were being settled, counsel for the plaintiff made an objection touching this matter, as follows: When it is remembered that there was an instructed verdict in plaintiff's favor as to the first cause of action, save as to the amount of damages and, in effect, the same kind of an instruction as to the second cause of action, any claim of prejudicial error as respects the forms of verdict submitted simply evaporates. Instructions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 read: We can see no prejudice to the defendant in the forms of verdict submitted, nor do we think the jury was under any misapprehension or entertained any confusion touching them. This claim of error is without merit. It may be added that some doubt arose at oral argument as to whether the trial judge ever actually heard defendants' objections *809 to the form of the verdicts dictated into the record out of his presence, before reading his written instructions to the jury. At oral argument, counsel for defendants admitted that following a meeting with the judge at which the views of all counsel on what the instructions should be were discussed, he informed counsel how he would instruct the jury, and stated to counsel they could dictate their objections into the record. This defense counsel proceeded to do out of the presence of the judge, who had left the conference following his announcement. We must assume in the absence of any showing of record to the contrary that the judge had his reporter read over these objections to him. It would have been highly improper for him to instruct the jury without having done so and the record not affirming otherwise, we must assume that he did. Finally, the defendants say the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict that the injury to plaintiff's buildings as claimed in the second cause of action was caused by the blasting done by defendants, or that the damage therefrom amounted to $4,000, the amount awarded by the jury's verdict. We have carefully reviewed the evidence as to each of these claims of error and think it affords substantial support for the verdicts rendered. Finding no error the judgment reviewed must be affirmed. It will be so ordered. LUJAN, C. J., and McGHEE, COMPTON, and SHILLINGLAW, JJ., concur.