A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast ...

[madam-professor]

A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast from the dynamite caused a house foundation to crack. The house was located over a half-mile away from the dynamite site. The contractor was careful when using the dynamite and no allegation of negligence is made. However, the house owner claims the contractor is liable for damage to the foundation. Is the house owner correct? Explain.

Question 2

Discuss the concepts of contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

[jrpg123456]

Answer to Question 1

Yes. The contractor is liable under the concept of strict liability. Generally speaking, strict liability applies if a person engages in dangerous activity that results in damage to property or personal injury. The homeowner does not have to prove duty, breach, or foreseeable harm. The fact that a person was very careful in carrying out the dangerous activity is not relevant. The only issue is whether the dangerous activity was the direct cause of the property damage or personal injury. In essence, strict liability is a trade-off, allowing for people to engage in dangerous activity but at the same time requiring them to be totally responsible if a person sustains damages as a result of that activity. It is incumbent on the person to obtain sufficient liability insurance if he is going to engage in dangerous activity so he will be able to provide proper compensation to any person damaged by the activity.

Answer to Question 2

Contributory negligence is a defense that can be used by a defendant to avoid liability. Most states have discarded this concept; however, if allowed, even if the plaintiff were one percent responsible for an accident, she cannot recover from the defendant. Comparative negligence is used to pro rate each party's fault in a negligence case. So, if the plaintiff is 50 percent or less responsible, she is allowed to collect relative to her degree of fault. Thus, if the plaintiff were 30 percent responsible for her accident and sustained 100,000 worth of injuries, she could recover 70,000 (70 percent) from the defendant.