Court Opinion

ID: 9793655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:51:09.209798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:30.910420
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the court, I disagree with its adoption of the approach of Exner v. Sherman Power Construction Co., 54 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1931), which imposes absolute or strict liability in all cases involving the use or storage of explosives. I am persuaded that sections 519 and 520 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) embody a sounder rule of law. On balance, I think it is preferable that the court, in making the determination whether an activity is “abnormally dangerous” and therefore subject to absolute liability, employ the criteria articulated in section 520 to analyze the particular acts and circumstances of the case. In my view, consideration of these criteria offers a rational solution to the problem of determining whether a particular activity is .abnormally dangerous.
Despite the foregoing, I can agree with the court’s overall disposition of this appeal since application of section 520 to the facts of the case leads to the conclusion that the activity in question was abnormally dangerous.1 Thus absolute liability was properly imposed.2

. In this respect, I agree with the majority’s analysis, made arguendo of the section 520 criteria in this factual context.

. I also note my agreement with the court’s resolution of the issue of supervening cause which was raised by petitioners.