Therefore the doctrine of absolute liability is inapplicable Rule of Law The

Therefore the doctrine of absolute liability is

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

noise from distance blasting, is not the kind of risk which makes activity of blasting dangerous.   Therefore the doctrine of absolute liability is inapplicable. Rule of Law: The court said that w hen strict liability is applicable, it will be confined to the  consequences, which lie within the extraordinary risk created by the abnormally dangerous  activity.   Reasoning: The court reasoned that strict liability is often imposed in blasting cases. However,  they further defined the issue stating that strict liability should be confined to consequences lying within the extraordinary risk of the abnormally dangerous activity. The court compared it to  proximate cause in negligence cases saying that there must be limits.  The trial court found that  the defendant’s blasting was not a nuisance to anyone except for Plaintiff’s mink ranch.  Concurrences / Dissents : None Analysis : I agree with this case, specifically where the court says there must be limits. This case relates to Spivey v. Battaglia in that the blasting is in inherently dangerous activity, but the harm that was caused is not the harm that the statute intended to protect.
Image of page 1

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice of the United States, Supreme Court of Washington

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture