BLASTING. A mode of rending rock and other solid substances by means of explo sives.
Blasting rock in the city of New York is and therefore legal ; Gourdier v. Cormack, 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 254; Wiener v. Hammell, 14 N. Y. Stipp. 365. It is a use ful and often a necessary means for the improvement of land, and where it does not amount to a nuisance, the person is answer able only if negligent; Klepsch v. Donald, 4 Wash. 436, 30 Pac. 991, 31 Am. St. Rep. 936. Absolute liability is imposed on the keeper of dangerous explosives only when by rea son of the location and surrounding circum stances the magazine is a nuisance; Heeg v. Licht, 80 N. Y. 579, 36 Am. Rep. 654. Many cases hold that injuries to a house caused by pulsations of the earth, vibrations of the air, and jarring the house will not render the one blasting liable therefor ; Simon v. Henry, 62 N. J. L. 486, 41 Atl. 692; Benner v. Dredging Co., 134 N. Y. 156, 31 N. E. 328, 17 L. R. A. 220, 30 Am. St. Rep. 649; Holland House Co. v. Baird, 169 N. Y. 136, 02 N. E. 149; Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co. v. Doak, 152 Ala. 106, 44 South. 627, 12 L. R.
A. (N. S.) 389; in the absence of negligence on his part ; id.; contra, Fitz Simons & Con nell Co. v. Braun, 199 III. 390, 65 N. E. 249,59 L. R. A. 421; City of Chicago v. Murdock, 212 Ill. 9, 72 N. E. 46, 103 A.m. St. Rep. 221; Longtin v. Persell, 30 Mont. 306, 76 Pac. 699, 65 L. R. A. 655, 104 Am. St. Rep. 723, 2 Ann. Cas. 198; but it has been held in other cases to be a nuisance where it causes loud noises and renders adjoining property untenanta ble; Gossett v. R. Co., 115 Tenn. 376, 89 S. W. 737, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 97, 112 Am. St. Rep. 846; that the continuance of the con cussions amount to a private nuisance; Mor gan v. Bowes, 17 N. Y. Supp. 22; and that injury to buildings caused by blasting ren ders the user of the explosives liable in damages, whether he was or was not negli gent; Farnandis v. R. Co., 41 Wash. 486, 84 Pac. 18, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1086, 111 Am. St Rep. 1027; Colton v. Onderdonk, 69 Cal. 155,
10 Pac. 395. 58 Am. Rep. 556. One engaged in blasting was held liable for a fire communi cated by the explosion of blasts; City of Tiffin v. McCormack, 34 Ohio St. 638, 32 Am. Rep. 408; and for the splitting of the underlying strata of rock; Gourdier v. Cormack, 2 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 200. That one attempting to use dynamite in blasting cannot foresee the consequences of his act does not relieve him from liability for an injury to the occupant of a neighboring property, In a populous neighborhood; Kimberly v. Howland, 143 N. C. 398, 55 S. E. 778, 7 L. RI A. (N. S.) 545.
For injuries to land caused by debris cast thereon by blasts in an adjoining quarry, trespass is the proper remedy ; Scott v. Bay, 3 Md. 431; right to blast for the purpose of making excavations on one's own land is sub ject to the limitation that the soil, stones, etc., must not be cast upon neighboring land; Hay v. Cohoes Co., .2 N. Y. 159, 51 Am. Dec. 279 (a leading case). An injunction will be granted; Sayen v. Johnson, 4 Pa. Co. Ct 360; Wilsey v. Callanan, 21 N. Y. Supp. 165; though negligence is not proved ; Central Iron & Coal Co. v. Vanderheuk, 147 Ala. 546, 41 South. 145, 61 L. R. A. (N. S.) 570, 119 Am. St. Rep. 102, 11 Ann. Cas. 346; and not withstanding the work was authorized by a city ordinance; Rogers v. Hanfield, 14 Daly (N. Y.) 339. So an injunction was granted to prevent the violent disturbance of a house, where the effect ultimately would be to shake it down; Hill v. Schneider, 13 App. Div. 299, 43 N. Y. Supp.' 1; but it is held that blasting at night in a mine cannot be re strained by the owner of the surface, merely because the blasting disturbs sleep; Marvin v. Mining Co., 55 N. Y. 538, 14 Am. Rep. 322.
One who blasts on his own land is liable where death results, irrespective of negli gence ; Sullivan v. Dunham, 161 N. Y. 290, 55 N. E. 923, 47 L. R. A. 715, 76 Am. St. Rep. 274; though the blast is fired for a lawful Purpose and by one skilled at the work; People's Gas Co. v. Tyner, 131 Ind. 277, 31