Spano v. Perini Corp.
Citation: 25 N.Y.2d 11 (1969)
Facts
Perini Corporation was performing blasting operations for a tunnel project in New York. The concussive force from an explosion damaged Spano’s garage and car, located 125 feet away, even though the blast did not cause any direct physical invasion of his property.
Issue
Is a party engaged in blasting operations strictly liable for damage caused by the concussive force of an explosion even without a direct physical intrusion?
Holding
Yes. New York adopted strict liability for blasting operations — any harm caused by a blasting operation, whether by debris or concussive force, results in strict liability without proof of negligence.
Rule
Strict liability for blasting: Parties engaged in blasting operations are strictly liable for all harm caused by their blasting, whether through physical impact or concussive force, regardless of whether the blasting was performed negligently. Blasting is an ultrahazardous (abnormally dangerous) activity that subjects its practitioners to strict liability.
Significance
- New York’s definitive adoption of strict liability for blasting
- Extends beyond physical trespass (debris) to concussive force (pressure waves) — eliminating the need to prove physical contact with the plaintiff’s property
- Reflects the Restatement (Second) § 519–520 abnormally dangerous activity framework
- Courts consistently apply strict liability to blasting as the paradigm case, regardless of which Restatement test is used
- Contractors cannot avoid liability by showing they hired careful blasters — strict liability attaches to the enterprise itself